Bibliowiki:Community Portal/en/Archive 2017

Free texts and images.
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the part from 01 January 2017 until the new server came online on 31 March followed by discussion since April 2017 (new server).

Discussions on the old site .ca

Happy New Year!

See here Here's looking forward to spreading a lot of free culture in the new year. What is your roadmap for 2017? What are you looking forward to here? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 09:14, 31 December 2016 (PST)


could somebody "in the know" please post what is happening with the sign-ups problem?

also, what happened with ectiology?

& how does that affect site ownership, administration, etc.?

plus whatever other news there is?  :)

(btw still waiting for a fix on the max upload/pdf problem from 2 yrs ago... )

best, in any case

Lx 121 02:03, 1 January 2017 (PST)



maybe we should consider importing the "thank an editor for their edit" feature from wikipedia?

i know it's a very small community here; but it wouldn't hurt to have it.

& if we have any plans to grow the community in the future, it'd be very useful in fostering that.

Lx 121 02:06, 1 January 2017 (PST)

some other midiawiki fixes/updates/features it would be nice to have:
1. bigger max file upload size; at least a little bigger. 2mb isn't enough for .pdf's, & it is pretty small for photos, tiny for any audio or video.
2. wider range of accepted file types. i couldn't even upload a .txt file version of a story; we should be covering all (major) doc/text formats at least.
makes it easier for downloading content to users as well
3. would be nice to get the latest features for "hotcat"; esp. the ones that "guess" the category you are looking for; re: capitalisation & spelling.
best, Lx 121 07:36, 5 January 2017 (PST)
OK. To find unswer for yours questions read: Wikilivres:Community_Portal/en/Archive_2015#User:Eclecticology is deceased and see some previous topics on the page. We don't have possibility to change anyfhing here, at this moment because nobody have acces to the server. Electron   14:53, 6 January 2017 (PST)
HotCat Yes, unfortunately, we have lost the person who was heading up the site--User:Yann was evidently in contact with this family but of course, that is a sensitive matter and it may take awhile before anyone is back in charge of the background technical issues. (For instance, the site has stopped sending me emails when something on my watchlist has changed. Have other users experienced this?) The good news is that if you want HotCat, you can easily import it. You can copy User:Koavf/monobook.js to User:Lx 121/monobook.js if you'd like. If other users want HotCat added to the site, I think that I can edit the common.js file to add it. Not sure about thanking though--that will probably require a newer version of MediaWiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 11:44, 7 January 2017 (PST)

Page for technical issues

Name? I am thinking about making a page for technical issues/bug/wishlist for features. Do you have suggestions for the name? For now, I will just make Wikilivres:Technical requests. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 11:45, 7 January 2017 (PST)

deletion appeal

yesterday, i uploaded "The Complete Works of Ian Fleming", story-by-story.

(i had to do it that way, because the filesize & page size limits on this wiki would not allow me to upload it in one "go"; either as a file, OR as c&p text.)

this work took HOURS; as i had to manually select EACH block to text to c&p. AFTER discovering that pages on this wiki WILL NOT SAVE PROPERLY if their size is >1,000,000 bytes.

since the one of the admins on here decided that they didn't like the page, & DELETED EVERYTHING

instead of fixing it, reformatting, creating separate pages, or, etc.

in fairness: the admin claims that 4 of the short stories were published posthumously, & are therefore not PD.

(the copyright page on the professionally released epub however made no mention of this: "This title is in the public domain in Canada and is not subject to any license or copyright.")

but that leaves 14 novels, 5 short stories, & 1 novel-length collection of essays.

ALL OF WHICH this editor decided to remove.

(NOTE THAT: the stories were separated into PAGE SECTIONS; one story per section. such that, it would have been EASY to move the blocks of text into separate pages, to delete ONLY the claimed-infringing items, etc.)

BUT this admin chose instead to delete everything, & sent me a note telling me to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

only in a way that would take me even longer.

ADDITIONALLY, both the user's actions & their comments clearly indicate that the person did not EXAMINE the page before deleting it.

LITERALLY: the admin did not even scroll down to the bottom of the page before deleting it.

(a careful examination will reveal what they "missed")

& did not read the messages i left on their talkpage (this was BEFORE the deletion situation; we were both working on the ian fleming stuff, & i was responding to some edit comments the user had made) informing them of the upload.

i am NOT pleased about this,

& i will not be spending additional hours of my time, RE-uploading all the text.

IF some admin on here wants to un-delete, & use the material, move it, reformat it, whatever; then fine.

i would like to receive credit as the uploader, ifso.

ifnot, then wikilivres can get the material from somewhere else, or do without.

to quote a friend of mine, "i have done my loving duty by you guys", & what you do next is up to you.

i can always find another place to upload, or start my own "PD bookshelf".

i'm sorry if this isn't very "friendly",


you spend 1/2 a day on some VERY tedious uploads, & related technical probs with the wiki;

you "stick it out", until it's done;

then you come back the next day, to find out someone else has DELETED IT.

see what it does for your agf & "goodcheer".

i'm not declaring my resignation, but i don't "need" to be here either. so if we have come to a "parting of the ways", then so be it.

...& there is no way in HELL that i am going to spend another 6 hours manually selecting text section-by-section to c&p & upload here ALL OVER AGAIN.

from THE SAME BOOK i already finished uploading.

to demand that is disrespectful of, & a waste of, my time.

i'm probably not going to be back here for a while after this, so y'all go figure out what you want to do; let me know how it turns out?

Lx 121 09:43, 24 January 2017 (PST)

Deletion It's good for us to be vigilant about copyright but it's also not necessary to immediately delete a file that is mostly within our scope. It looks like the admin in question and you have been in contact and I will happily work with the two of you. He's a good editor here and elsewhere and wants to make this site better, so I hope that we can all do just that. I understand being frustrated but let's see if we can take a step back and let cooler heads prevail--assume good faith, work together, and plan on how we can collaborate. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 11:02, 24 January 2017 (PST)
  • comment: hi. just to be clear this was not a file. this was a page with about 900,000 bytes of text (2 novels' worth, plus the title page & table of contents). selected for c&p in sections, by hand (which is EXTREMELY tedious, fiddly work) from a big, long .txt file made from the original epub.
the admin could have easily removed JUST the suspected "non-pd-because-of-posthumous-1st-publication" material, & left the rest intact.
in total, i uploaded ~8 million bytes of text, split into 8 pages (7 of which the deleting admin didn't even notice yet; because they DIDN'T BOTHER TO SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE 1st PAGE before deleting it).
i am NOT going to do all of that work over again; much less chapter-by-chapter, which would be ~100+ sections of the text to find & hand-select for c&p, & then set up as separate pages on here.
you can salvage the uploaded text from the deleted page (& the 7 other pages the deleting admin didn't even notice when making their administrative "decision") or not.
the page is broken down into sections; 1 section per novel or story. that should be fairly easy to work with, if you want to move it elsewhere.
if you do, that would give our website pretty close to a complete collection of Ian fleming's PD published works. the only things missing would be various essays & magazine articles by the author; all the novels & major stories were included.
either way, i am done with uploading ian fleming here. i spent ~6 HOURS dealing with it yesterday; between converting the file, technical probs on the wiki here, SLOW c&p, processing, & page-loading times on here, do-overs, & all the fiddly hand-searching of the very large .txt file for c&p to wikilivres. i have started a pd ebook blog, & the original epub of ian fleming's works is posted there.
on this wikiproject i am either moving on to other authors, or i am taking a wikibreak; maybe both.
best, Lx 121 12:10, 24 January 2017 (PST)
In my defence, for the past four days I have been away on holiday. I had to use the hotel's one public computer. Each time I visited a different web page (not just a site, a page) that page got automatically translated into Chinese and I had to keep clicking on "show original" again. That made wiki editing very difficult. I am also an admin on nine different wikis, the subject matter of three of them makes them potential targets for vandalism and another one gets lots of good faith edits of a very poor quality that have to be corrected. So I try to check all of them every day. I had been out all day and it was quite late at night by the time I got round to checking the wikis on the day that I deleted the page. It is true that I didn't scroll all the way down and see all of what was on the page that I deleted. Given its title, and the fact that it started with a full table of contents, I assumed that the whole book was on the page. After I had deleted the page, I saw that there were other Complete Ian Fleming pages. But by then I was really tired and wanted to go to bed. I thought I could undelete it the next day. But that day, there was no internet access at the hotel all evening.
I know what it's like to spend a long time doing something only to have somebody say, "That's not what we want." I am sorry for any hurt I have unintentionally caused.
However, building a decent wiki takes time and cannot be rushed. I would expect the process of uploading all of Ian Fleming's works to take several years. I would not expect it to be done in a day. I still think that the only way to add his novels here is chapter by chapter. Adding a chapter or two a week for a couple of months would be fine by me. Each novel would have a contents page with a link to every chapter. And then that page could be linked to from the Wikipedia page about each novel and a potentially much larger number of readers would come here. Simon Peter Hughes 02:49, 26 January 2017 (PST)

What's next? Lx 121, as you can see, Simon had a reasonable explanation and the content has been restored. As he's pointed out, though, it's still pretty haphazard and needs some work. Do you think we can move forward from here? Sometimes we can forget the human element behind all of this work--there's another person at a screen who knows how many miles away who is doing this work. And in this case, I think both of you were trying to be helpful and also made some missteps. We all do. What can we do to make Wikilivres better? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:36, 26 January 2017 (PST)

*reply -- HI; busy last-part-of-the-week, sorry. will have time to spend on here tomorrow (hopefully). fine @ explanation, good @ restored. i have no "commitment" to the present format & layout of the material; it was just the most convenient way of getting it "up", given the present technical limitations of our site. if i could have uploaded the epub (size limit problem), i'd have just done that, & moved on to the next thing. do not have any objections to moving the texts around, reformatting them, etc. i just bring 'em back to the village; you guys can slice & dice them however you like. just please don't waste good, "clean copy", useable text, & then ask me to "do it all over again"? (especially when it's something that is a pain to uplaod) that is VERY frustating(!) best regards, Lx 121 06:55, 27 January 2017 (PST)

In fact I still do not understand what is the matter here. You uploaded obviously a very huge unformated pages, without consulting the community here; why to consult? it not only here but in all such projects like wikisource absolute unusual to upload such files. And then, as I understand (and as I saw), you are expecting that somebody will formate it here. This is unusual as well. It is normal that other user do help in some points and correst this odr that. But I think a text, fully unformated, and in this size that probably loads too long (if), is nothing usefull for people who would like to read it. Simon, as I can see, did apologize it. So we schould find a way now what we can do with it. In another way. Cheers -jkb- 15:22, 27 January 2017 (PST)

HI i'm not sure if i understand your comment? but: i find texts for public domain (in canada) literature, i upload them here; you can do whatever you want with them, after that.

i'm sorry, but i'm not interested in doing all the mark-up stuff & page-creation & other fine-tuning to make it "pretty"; i'm just not interested in spending my time working on that, or mastering those skills.

i didn't come here from wikisource, i came from wikipedia. & if i feel like doing something that involves "focussed concentration" & working more directly & in detail with text, i'll just go & edit there; or sort items @ wikimedia commons. or work on my own writing.

in the limited time that i have available to work "here", i'm here to find digitised texts of PD books & get them online.

especially stuff that's newly-PD; because i feel that it is important to protect public domain rights, by asserting them.

the e-texts i do "bring back" here are or will be, to the best of my ability to find them, accurate/"faithful" & "clean" copy of the original work.

& it is not "unformatted", in the sense that it has full punctuation & paragraph & chapter breaks (as per the style of the original text).

what it doesn't have, is "wikisource"-style layout, formatting, & markups.

from what i can see in the logs, i seem to be one of the biggest providers of new text-material on here, at least english-language text.

we now have more of ian fleming than does; & i uploaded the narnia series here months before had them online.

& i have & can find lots more material.

but if my contributions to the community are unwelcome or unwanted, i can find someplace else to upload it.

i do think this little project has potential, but the project is is VERY small & rather "moribund"; & we really need to sort out the ownership & hosting future of the site, asap.

we also need to figure out our "role" in the canadian PD/open source/free culture "scene"; vis a vis, etc.

my "take" has been that we should try to get as much material up as possible, as fast as possible (while maintaining basic quality control); focussing on stuff that is not uploadable @ wikisource (to avoid redundancy); so therefore "things that are public domain in canada, but not in the USA".

AND i think we should try to get as much of the "newly" PD stuff up as we can, as soon as we can, after the latest year's worth of authors "graduate" into the public domain.

& then we can make those texts all "pretty"; formatted & laid out in wikisource-style.

btw: i haven't really looked, but do we have any "tools" for end-users to DOWNLOAD complete texts from wikilivres?

by that i mean: to compile a complete set of pages making up the text of a complete book (or whatever), laid out in wikisource-style; & turn that "pile of stuff" into one download for the end-user? for them to read offline, print out, or etc.

Lx 121 19:02, 27 January 2017 (PST)

Content I think you are mostly right here but there are a couple of important considerations. While it is true that we need more content and I also agree that freshly public domain content is a really attractive draw, there is some value in having minimal formatting. In the case of pages which are 400kb in length, those will simply not load at all in some browsers. This isn't a matter of using fancy templates and formatting--I agree that this is simply unnecessary and that plain text versions of pages are very valuable. But creating pages that are difficult or impossible to render isn't a trivial matter. Also, in this particular case, it's not really that important that we have a scan and arrangement of these stories in this manner--what is helpful is having his short stories in general. Many writers have many collections of short stories--some of them hodge-podge, some of them definitive--but if I'm looking for a given story, I don't really care how it's arranged next to other ones which are totally unrelated except by author. If you want to just dump pure text into a few dozen pages that are titled after the individual stories, I think that is much more preferable, honestly. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:01, 27 January 2017 (PST)
fair point; but my main objective here was just to get it finished. it's been a huge pain-in-the-ass working with this file, not being able to just upload it due to size limits, having to do manual highlighting for c&p story-by-story; especially in the original .epub format, where the highlighting drops if you accidentally scroll past the end of the section & you have to start all over again.
the "complete i.f." pages i did on this end weren't really intended as a "final product", more like a "quickie" raw dump; to be worked on here, by people more interested in doing the page layouts than i am.
have copied the 2 remaining "redlink" short stories over to the "for your eyes only" anthology, & that's now "complete" (& if anybody else would like to take over breaking down the other works into appropriate pages, feel free? i've got other titles to upload, that i'd like to "move on" to).
also; we should probably make a "definite" decision on what to do about the 4(?) bond short stories you mentioned, that appear to have been 1st published posthumously. the epub, which was from a professional publishing house (penguin-random house canada, & presumably released after flemming's pma-50), made no mention, or special reservation of them, in the copyright notice. according to them, it's just all "public domain & license-free". do we have confirmation, or what kind of confirmation do we have, that each of them was never published before fleming's death? because "anything" would count; not just books. if it was printed in a magazine or newspaper anywhere while he was alive, that's still "published". & i think "bond" was already quite popular before he died?
btw; your trip sounds interesting! (@ simon)
regards, Lx 121 13:50, 29 January 2017 (PST)

Fair use image?

I have just started a page on Edwin Muir. There is a photo of him on Wikipedia, but it is described as "Fair use". He died in 1959 but it does not say who the photographer is or when he or she died. Can this photo be used on Wikilivres?--Poetlister 03:53, 5 February 2017 (PST)

Fair use That's a good question, actually. I don't think there is any non-free media on this site. Wikilivres:Inclusion policy only mentions an exception for material related to Canadian culture but I don't know of any of those as well. As far as I can tell, there simply hasn't been anything that is fair use here--it's either actual free culture or it's skipped over here. I don't know that this has to be the case but I actually kind of like it. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 10:52, 5 February 2017 (PST)
Fair use is American law conception, not Canadian, as I am aware. This site is hosted and managed in Canada and therefore it follows Canadian copyright law. See -> Main Page. Electron   16:12, 6 February 2017 (PST)
Fair dealing "Fair use" is an American legal term that is approximately equal to "fair dealing" elsewhere which Canada certainly does have. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:06, 6 February 2017 (PST)
OK. Thanks for the explanation. To say the truth I have no my own opinion on this matter. On the other hand "fair use" or "fair dealing" materials are not "free" and how does that compare with the fact that the purpose of this site is to host texts and images in the public domain, or under a free licence. (see the declaration on the main page) Electron   16:28, 7 February 2017 (PST)
Agreed The only exception that we have so far is for texts that relate especially to Canadian culture or history. We could change our licensing but I don't see it happening. especially over fair use photos for author pages... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:39, 7 February 2017 (PST)

*comment; if you can't trace the author, look for other photos? & i can't remember what year it is, but for photographs, there is a "cutoff date" before which all photos are now PD.

also; for this kind of thing, cdn "fair use" law should be pretty close to that in the USA

Lx 121 21:51, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Did a quickie search, & given the author's d.o.b. some of these must be pre-1949 (under the old rules/pd cutoff date for transition to pma-50): hope the link works. Lx 121 22:55, 9 February 2017 (PST)

we need to discuss the future of this project...

hey all;

had a bit of a scare the other night. the was not responding &/or dead slow; & the "outage" lasted for quite some time.

was afraid that might be it, & the site had gone dark. which is not an unreasonable concern, given the current situation.

so, 2 things that we really need to sort out, as a community.

  1. does anybody know what is going on with the site ownership & hosting?
  2. do we have a "PLAN B"?

i) is anybody making COMPLETE backups of the project/wiki database? for that matter, CAN anybody here access the database on that level? for that matter,

  • what about a "mirror" site?
  • what about contact with the wikimedia canada people?

ii) we need to have some fallback method of staying in touch, at least with/among the active editors, if the site goes dark.

something that is easy to use & "foolproof": mutual exchange of contact info &/or someplace off-site we can use as a(n emergency-backup) community bbs.

i think an off-site "noticeboard' is a good idea, whether we exchange any contact info or not. it doesn't need to be something that we use all the time, but it does need to be something that we can all access, if/when we need to, & that we can count on not "disappearing".

possibly a special page @ wikisource?

am entirely open to other suggestion, but i do think we really need to get this sorted out/clarified. because if the site does just go "poof" one day, that is really going to SUCK.

especially after all the work we have put in to it.

so, let's discuss?  :)

Lx 121 23:14, 9 February 2017 (PST)

Site future Your points are well taken. The only one who may know is User:Yann. I asked him a few months back but I don't think he had any news from Ray's family. Of course, it's a very touchy subject and I would never want to cause them undue discomfort--I honestly don't know what the etiquette is in situations like this so I want to err on the side of not harassing some strangers who lost a loved one recently. I have also posted to Wikimedia Canada's Discussions page several months ago and there was some talk but it didn't lead anywhere. As for back-ups, it is definitely possible to create them and Archive Team have two on the Internet Archive now: one from 2012-11-12 and the second from 2014-01-11. We can and should make more. As far as centralized discussion if this place goes dark, maybe the s:mul:Scriptorium? I suggest that in part because it's multilingual like this site and in part because it is less busy than I'll post there now just in case as well--see how that community feels about us being possible refugees there. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:44, 9 February 2017 (PST)
Relevant posts ca.wm and —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 00:00, 10 February 2017 (PST)
I am afraid that "deadline" is comming: [1] (last payment was dane in March of 2015), so if somebody new how to make new base dump it would be apreciated to do it as soon as possible... For my own purpose I have archived all pages of Polish section, and transver them to The problem is that the site is American (with different copyrights), so I had to hide them for some time. My first thought was to transfer all content of wikilivres there (on wikia everybody can create new wiki servis and it is free hosting) but I am afraid that we would brake American copyright law... Electron   05:54, 10 February 2017 (PST)
Hi, I didn't have an answer from Ray's family, so I don't know what to do next. I have had some offers for technical help, but I don't know any recent dump. If you need to contact me shortly, please send me a mail. Regards, Yann 07:21, 10 February 2017 (PST)
OK, but I'm really afraid about this project. We started to discuss it some times, but without any sollution. Now I see that some users are working here but in fact, I have huge difficulties to do something, as I don't know how long this site will survive.
The next problem is, that many of us "left this site" already in their minds: if we have some Problems here, and we have, the most of us stay away (similarry the same on the Oldwikisource). Yep, I agree with Yann, we need somebode with some technical knowledges that has changed a lot in the last years (I have just managed to install the last version of mediawiki on my private tablet, but a tablet is not a site!). Cheers, and hoping this nice site will go on! -jkb- 14:19, 10 February 2017 (PST)
I'm concerned, too. I have contacted someone who knew Ray and also ArchiveTeam (I tried to do the archiving myself but I couldn't get the Python script to work). I checked the Whois info for the domain and found the registrar and host, so I will contact them directly if I can't make any headway with Ray's loved ones. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 14:26, 10 February 2017 (PST)
I asked the admin of Russian Dmitri Smirnov and he ansered me that there is possibility to transfer all content of to Russian and Canadian copyrigth laws are diffirent. On the other hand, there in Russia the law is not keep as strictly as in other countries so we shouldn't "bothered with this for now", as he said. Of course we can keep to Canadian law, as it is now. Vitali Lipatov wrote (in Russian) also that there is possibility to transfer the whole site on new domain name, as a separate site. It is metter to discuss. In this option the newest base dump of is needed. What do you think about this? It can be done temporally, or on permament time. On my mind, if there is no other reasonable proposal at the moment we should weigh up it carefully. Electron   18:21, 12 February 2017 (PST)
I have been in contact about transferring the domain and am calling the host tomorrow and I'm trying to get a backup of the site. Long-term issues about Wikilivres:Technical requests, new users, hosting, accepting donations, etc. are all to be decided. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:01, 12 February 2017 (PST)
I'm afraid we have to stay in Canada, or better somewhere in Canada, then we can transfer the page to the new site as well. But "in Russia the law is not kept as strictly as in other countries" is for a reason to avoid .ru in any case. -jkb- 00:49, 13 February 2017 (PST)
You maybe right but if there is no other option?... and if it is our "to be or not to be"?.. It would be very pity if our site disaper one day. And all content gathered here, all our work.
I will not demonize Russian attitude to law. It is only our attitude if we will keep strictly to the chosen system of copyrights, or not. The first problem is to survive, next to think what to do after. Electron   03:44, 13 February 2017 (PST)
We are getting a backup at Internet Archive and we can keep discussion at the Multlingual Wikisource if necessary. I will just buy a domain name if I have to to put the site back online. Right now, it looks like we will be safe, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:48, 13 February 2017 (PST)

*comment -- as long as we can make regular backups happen (preferably at least monthly); & we can agree on an off-site location for an "emergency bbs", then we should be ok.

it would be a shame to lose the site, or the site name; but we can recover from that, as long as we have the database, & a way to keep the community (such as it is) together.

Lx 121 07:53, 13 February 2017 (PST)

BTW -- does anyone know how easy or difficult it would be to reinstall the whole website & content database FROM one of these backups? Lx 121 07:59, 13 February 2017 (PST)

Provisory discussion started when migrating

Domain Name Discussion and Review -- CLOSED

There are not many complaints about, and this seems to fit with the series of domains:,, One thing I want to mention though is that letting those other domains expire (it seems other parties have these now in their possession) really hurts the link-based reputation of the site. Best practice to preserve inbound links (and the visibility/importance of the site to search engines) is to keep the old domains and redirect with a 301 to the new domain. Domain name changes are ok (if for an important reason), but not redirecting from the old domain has a strong negative effect, the history of inbound links is severed. If the current 5 users with admin rights each donate $7 USD, then that is $35 which is the cost of for 1 year (on Of course, anyone (non Admins) could donate any amount, this is just one mathematically viable path to $35. Please send via Paypal to and once I get to the $35 mark I will get that domain.

comment -- am certainly willing to be part of the funding-group; but not clear if this was directed @ me? i don't think i have been "adminned" on here. was not @ the old project. would not turn down the "honour" (so to speak), but am more interested in the "operational aspects" of how we run the project, than the on-wiki adim tasks. am willing to be a steward, "sit" on a arbcom or etc., but would prefer not to get into the "justice of the peace" stuff too much (or the endless debates that come with it), & don't have the time (or deep enough interest) to do (much of) the "housekeeping" stuff. at least not 24/365-6/forever. (assuming, of course, if/when the project-community grows to the point where any of this is relevant; right now we have about enough people to crew a lifeboat) Lx 121 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone is encouraged to contribute to the domain name fund. So far I've received one donation. If people don't vote with their pocketbooks, then it is obvious that the domain name is not important. I think it is important but really it is a community (or an aggregate of people) who should make this decision. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope it was my donation - I got some troubles by sending it, but I hope it's OK now - ? -jkb- (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't sending my money abroad yet, so I have to learn how to do it. I try to send my share during the week, don't worry. Electron   22:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I made the transfer too. Don't know, maybe the money are in the pocket of some lucky guy now, if I made it wrong. I use paypal on very rare occasions. -- VadimVMog (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've got three transfers now, including Vadim's. I've responded to the other two (-jkb-, Electron). We are almost halfway there! --Jeffmcneill (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the users of Russian wikisource noticed, the domain name .io is not Canadian. I checked and it is assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory. Doesn't it mean it is under British law? -- VadimVMog (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Top level domains do not determine copyright law (and vice versa). Copyright law applies to a geographical location, and the new server is in Montreal, Canada, so that is definitely the same situation. Having a .ca domain does not mean, or require, that the server/host is physically in Canada. The same is true of the .io top-level domain. Yes, this is originally meant and issued to the British Indian Ocean Territory (where the Diego Garcia military base is), but the British government has contracted with a registrar to manage the namespace. .io also happens to be one of the 19 country code TLDs (such as .co, .me, .nu, .fm, .tv, etc.) that are recognized as being generic by Google and other search providers. It has the distinct advantage (over .ca) as being generic for search (akin to .com, .net, .org). --Jeffmcneill (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
supplemental information for the user who asked: we did discuss this question, pre-launch. IF it ever became a problem, we could just migrate to a .ca name. if possible, we might still try to recover in the future (which was "lost" with the death of the former siteadmin). Lx 121 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue isn't so much which domain name, but rather: 1) Any domain name should be generic and not a non-generic country-code (for search engine purposes). The move to .ca while well-meaning, was a mistake from an SEO perspective. 2) All domain names that the site used to operate under should be re-acquired, when possible, and have them re-routed to the new domain (supporting all old links, a cure for domain-specific linkrot).
Inbound links to: 52,467 from 715 domains; 16,191 from 1,017 domains. Again, it doesn't matter what domain one wants to use, but rerouting from older domains (301 redirect) is crucial. So one has to keep renewing (old) domain names forever, or lose users/traffic/search engine influence (quality links rank results higher). --Jeffmcneill (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC) status at

Btw. I found some info what the status is ( taken from ): is already registered*
Domain name:
Domain status: registered
Creation date: 2008/02/29
Expiry date: 2019/02/28
Updated date: 2017/02/27
DNSSEC: Unsigned

Name: Trillium Internet Company Inc
Number: 59

Name servers:

% WHOIS look-up made at 2017-04-08 08:57:07 (GMT)
% Use of CIRA's WHOIS service is governed by the Terms of Use in its Legal
% Notice, available at
% (c) 2017 Canadian Internet Registration Authority, (

So its expiry date is 2019/02/28, yet 2 year... and the owner is deceased. So I do not know how we could take over it, legally. Electron   09:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I also saw this (about 1 hour ago), and my initial thoughts are: "This is a hosting company who has hijacked a domain name." I will begin contact with this hosting company, to see where it may lead. I am very clear about aribtration proceedings, and will start down that path. My sense is that someone is being deceptive, and we can hang them up on their own petard'.
As I remember, few weeks ago somebody wrote on that the domain fee is about $8-$10 per year, and there is no problem for him to pay it, and everybody can pay it, not only its owner... Possible that it was User:Koavf who wrote this. I'm not sure... Maybe he paid it? There are not last our discusions survived, the discussions after the back-up was done. So I can't check this. Electron   21:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we try this route? To contact provider, to pay for the site, so all former users can make edits there. When registration expires, to reregister it. -- VadimVMog (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've sent a contact form into Trillium ( asking for their process to gain control of this domain name. In particular I provided new Nameserver records that would allow me to point the domain name to the new server. (I use AWS for DNS):

Yes, I paid for hosting. If you can get a hold of them, please let me know--I have sent countless emails and made dozens of calls over the course of months. The only time I have gotten a hold of someone was when I gave them money. Koavf (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: @Jeffmcneill: @VadimVMog: @-jkb-: and the others: OK. Thank you for yours explanation. So we know, that the domain is paid, now. The problem is how to gain control over it, that it will lead here, to our new place of hosting. After that we can think about is it a good idea to change it to something else, maybe the better one. If it work, we will have 2 years to do this. Electron   09:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: @Electron: @VadimVMog: @-jkb-: I've received a reply from They confirmed that the renewal was paid for, and will ask CIRA (the Canadian registrar assoc.) what the policy is for the situation we have (a deceased owner). I've asked to have the Nameservers updated in the interim. The reality would be that property (domain registration) would belong to beneficiaries of the estate, though they are unresponsive, and the fact that @Koavf: paid for the renewal (and we have a restored server with previous content) makes a good case. I believe we will just have to wait and go through a bureaucratic process. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Koavf:, @Electron:, @VadimVMog:, @-jkb-:, and @Electron:. Today @Jusjih: noticed that was working again and emailed me. I went ahead and configured dns and generated a new SSL certificate, and changed back the default address to The url will also continue to work, and I will turn that into a redirection. We can table the discussion of a new domain name, as that is not required at the moment. I will refund donations, or forward them to @Koavf: since he spent the money on the renewal, as per individual wishes. Please advise. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@jeffmcneill: How in the world did you get a hold of them...? Koavf (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I flashed the secret webmaster gang signs. ^_^ You probably softened them up, and then they realized the site was back, two emails and a twitter tweet. All credits to you, without renewing the domain would be locked in expiration mode by now. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Good work :) What about the money - in my opinion it is a good idea to keep it for any spendings connected with our site in the future. Electron   10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New Antivirus False Positive Report -- CLOSED

Btw. My Avast antivirus has the same objection to "new" address, as he have had before to ... So, I have to add the address to the exlusion list of the antyvirus to work. Electron   10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just now submitted false positive reports for the new (old) domain to AVAST and ESET. Thanks for reporting this again. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Electron: both Avast and ESET have responded quickly and said that they are not seeing any problem with the sites and their software. Please screenshots so I am follow up with them. Thanks! --Jeffmcneill (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, what about Avast, I removed the address from its list, and it sees to work without problem, now. Maybe it was an temporary phenomenon, or something with my browser's cache? Nevertheles, thanks for yours help. Electron   10:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Electron:, I've informed the Antivirus companies we are not seeing any errors. Looks like everything is fine. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

New Comment on Domain Name

Wikilivres is a name that is used by three different wiki books projects (I hope I've got this right):

  •, previously - This project, public domain only (no restrictions on derrivative works or commercial use).
  • - Includes content that can have restrictions on derrivative works and commercial use (content from was moved to a few years ago).
  • - French language wikibooks site (currently hosted in the Netherlands) uses the name Wikilivres (literally "Wikibooks" in French), but not the domain name.

Wiklivres (this project) is not a wikibooks-like project (open editing of books) but really identical in many ways to the Wikisource project, which is getting previously published works online, but not editing it afterwards (preserving the original source).

As well, there is ongoing confusion about the Canadian connection. There are many people concerned about the move from a .ca to a .io, as proposed. And also how to refer to the Wikilivres project (e.g., Canadian Wikibooks). I think this will continue to cause confusion into the future, both the name Wikilivres (which other projects use) and the Canadian aspect (which is not required to perform the Life+50 Copyright. Indeed, there are many other countries with this copyright law, (though not many have cheap, reliable website hosting and high bandwidth networks). However, if Canada were to change its copyright law (which Canada agreed to do so under the TPP).

If a name (and domain name) can reflect the particular mission of Wikilivres, a different name might do so with less confusion. In this spirit, I suggest something like: This has the virtue of having a generic TLD (no .ca, or .io, etc.), having the wiki name in the extension (though the sharp-eyed among us can still see a remnant ca at the end of publica. Also, publica is first person indicative for I publish as well as second person imperative you, publish! in Catalan and Italian, and it means of/for the public in Latin. It also has the benefit of being short, easy to spell/remember, while also not being exactly the category name (e.g., public domain). Now is a good time to consider this kind of change. For current/past users Wikilivres has a brand name, but since there are others with this name, it is not unique and that causes problems. Thoughts? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Name change -- yes, I agree with what you said. People are used to everything, including names, but later they are used to a new one. And now is the right time for a change too. I also thougt about domain name and came to .wiki and .online like that: "Publishing" seems not the right word to me. Our goal is to keep already published books. It's truly a library. In Russian, German, French, Italian, Spanish a library is "biblioteca", so I would look in that direction. Like "", but this one is bought already. "" is free. "" looks ugly. "" is free too. -- VadimVMog (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll add a bit. I don't see tragedy, if we'll stay at, or even But I would prefer to change the name for the reasons mentioned by Jeffmcneill. -- VadimVMog (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I had to search for this thread a bit ... in fact I would expect a talk on the domain name in the scriptorium not here as it is de facto nop technical question. As for me, I would like very strictly to keep "wikilivres" as it is our trade mark since many years. But, however, shouldn't we start this talk on the right place - Wikilivres:Community Portal/en? -jkb- (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes @-jkb-: you are absolutely correct. I've moved it here, now. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding trademark, the problem is that this term is used by others so exclusive rights to it are not possible (and therefore no trademark). Also, some could claim that wikilivres is generic for wikis about books (and again, no trademark possible). I do agree and understand that it is the brand name that has been used for 10+ years. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Great that is working again. The pity is that we lost, and that harms the site referencing (ex: ). It would be great to get back, which is currently not working. The name Wikilivres comes from the site history: at first it was in French only, but soon I realized that it should be multilingual. And the French Wikibooks didn't use that name then. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC) does not have any indexed inbound sitelinks (I've check with two online tools), so that one would not help the site (unless there was a desire to go from .ca to .org). The domain is valuable because of all the links, but we can contact where the links are and ask to have the links changed. Not everyone will respond but some will. That's the best we can do. We still don't have back, but it is likely we will get that worked out over the next few months. Once access to the registrar account is complete, we can create a small project for interested Wikilivreans to hunt down inbound links and request URL changes of site administrators. I've filed this as Github Issue #55. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Hi all,

while the migration to this new site is going on it is probably better not to create new pages in other than user name space. As we shall need a place to coordinate the work in the future I created this page to enable it; when the migration is finished and the site consolidated we can copy the content of this page to the "real" scriptorium as usual. Please be free an edit here and discuss all necessary stuff. -jkb- (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2017 (JST)

Sounds good. Perhaps adding to sidebar sooner than later is good, as we can now move discussion here from Meta and from Github (so things are in one place). --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2017 (JST)
I was free and added it to the site notice at the moment - -jkb- (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2017 (JST)

Restore - Latest Status

Moved to Technical requests page.

Directors (Bureaucrats)

Is there some subset of Admins that is the Directors or are all Admins directors (or acted as a governing/influencing board)? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2017 (JST)

In fact we had no hierarchy like this afaik. -jkb- (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2017 (JST)
There was at least one bureaucrat, were there others? Also, did Admins make decisions as a group, or was it more discussion of topics and whomever participated? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (JST)
Oh, mea culpa, if you mean "directors" like bureaucrats, so we had approx three to four, despite of Eclecticology. -jkb- (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2017 (JST)

Current bureaucrats are: @Yann:, @-jkb-:, @Zephyrus:, @Jeffmcneill:

hierarchy talk

Basically; we need to figure all of that out, going forward.

@ the old site, we really had very little "formal" structure; & a very small group of active users, @ least for the years i've been active here.

it is my tentative understanding that the project was originally created by, & then spun off from, the cdn chapter of wp/wm. do not know why, how, or details.

since then, it's gone through at least 2 owners, & some domain & hosting changes.

the actual "working arrangement" (as re: actual work on/in the project) has been pretty informal, with different people & languages pretty much doing their own thing, within the basic framework.

owner-operating decisions have been "ad hoc" by the person(s) in possession of the domain, & paying the bills; with some private discussions among members, but really no formal "community proccess" type consultation or decision-making.

i'm not sure how "fancy" we want to get with setting something up, especially given how small our group presently is; but i'd suggest that we should form a "core group" to operate the site, of the people who were running it @ the old site/those most involved in setting up the transition/& those paying the bills.

they/we can be the informal "officers" of the organisation, pending any more formal/legal arrangements we work out; &/or our actually having a large enough active-membership to (be able to, & to be worth the effort to) run a "community-process", etc.

for the record, i am a canadian citizen & resident. am willing to put my real name foward for use on paperwork, etc. if that is helpful or needed; but would have to keep any money-matters (banking, tax, etc.) completely separated from my "real life" ("properly"/legally separate i mean; not "under the counter"-separate). unless the wmf wants to put us all on their paid staff...  :p

Lx 121 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2017 (JST)

some corrections:
  • the old wikilivres havn't been established by canadian Users, but by admins and bureaucrats of the oldwikisource and some stewards
  • we had no "owner" or "officers"
  • yep, we have some different languages etc., informal OK, but nobody was doing "their own thing", we were a team
  • "owner-operating decisions have been "ad hoc" by the person(s) in possession of the domain" - what do you mean by this pls?
would like to get an answer. Regards -jkb- (talk) (by the way, I don't think it is the right time to organize such ground discussions - we have other problems at the moment) -jkb- (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2017 (JST)
reply -- was responding to the original questions in this section.
  • the site was always "canadian" as far as i know; i.e.; operating under canadian copyright law. not clear on the exact history of its founding; but somewhere in the old on-wiki discussions, somebody said it had been spun off from/by the cdn chapter of wikipedia/wikipedians.
  • & clearly someone must have "owned" the site, as far as domain name registration, hosting, & bills are concerned. in the time i've been a member (* ~2012-ish), the site ownership changed hands at least once, to eclectiology. hosting arangements, & i think the exact site name also changed during this time. then eclectiology, later & sadly, died; leading to our present situation.
  • i am not saying we were not a "team"; but there was very little formal organisation of the work. individuals or small groups of ppl would work on whatever materials interested them. which is not a bad thing.
there was very limited interaction between users working in different languages, though
& no major changes have been possible since eclectiology's death, we've just been working on the content since then; & holding some discussions & planning for what to do in the future.
  • by "ad hoc", i mean that the person responsible for the site's domain name & hosting was making the operating decisions & changes as things came up, & more or less on their own initiative; with some discussion with a couple of the senior admins, i think, but no real community involvement in the process.
i do not criticise this, i merely describe it. the one obvious problem with this approach was that the one single owner held all the "keys", & when eclectiology died there was no way to re-assign control.
Lx 121 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2017 (JST)

No. You have a huge lack of the knowledge of the wikilivres history. And I don't know why you discuss it here. Eod for me. -jkb- (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2017 (JST)

Perhaps Lx 121 meant some April fool for the first day of April? The story he has told is extremely different from the reality we lived here. Sorry Lx 121, eod for me too. --Zephyrus (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2017 (JST)

well, with all due respect, for the time period from 2012 to now i speak from personal knowledge; about the "founding history" before that, i can only repeat what i have read on the wiki. & the records of all the on-wiki discussions & actions should be present in the backups now being restored.

certainly the site was set up as "canadian", & operated under canadian copyright laws.

certainly eclectiology was the most recent owner-operator of, certainly this person has died, & certainly there was no process to transfer control & ownership of the site. which brought us to the present situation.

& as i have said, i was replying primarily to the questions posted by the user who created this section; with some explanation of the previously existing structure & history of the project. if or where the explanations are are in error, please specify & correct them?

Lx 121 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2017 (JST)

and @ some point, we do still need to work out how we are going to operate, going forward into the future. Lx 121 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2017 (JST)

Lx 121: FYI I created Wikilivres (as and then At the end of 2009, I could not managed the site any more, and I looked for someone to take over. Ray offered, and I transferred the site to him. He moved the site to Yes, it has always been hosted in Canada to benefit from Canadian copyright law, but I am not Canadian, and I am not in Canada. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2017 (JST)

HI YANN :) good to see you again! & thanks for clearing that up. knew about the reasons for hosting it in canada, & the basic flow of events since i joined; did not know much about the history before that. but somewhere in a recent discussion about the future of (on that site), somebody said something about the cdn chapter of wikipedians having passed wikilivres on to somebody else, because they no longer wanted to operate it (we were discussing options for the future). clearly that information was wrong, or at least badly mangled(!) i actually am canadian, btw, & resident therein; so if we ever do need somebody to "front", act as an in-country agent-representative, etc. i can help with that xD Lx 121 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this; if so then we have all good reasons to work here together in a good mood :-) regards from -jkb- (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Everyone, sorry that my questions ended up with some ruffled feathers. I thank Lx 121 for jumping into the fray. I have probably the least amount of information about the group and its history and the like, and Lx 121 was surely meaning to be helpful to me in answering the question. He was the one who emailed me after the server had been down for several days, asking if I was still going to get involved. In any case, it sounds like a history of this wiki needs to be written down, and shared (and what better place than in a wiki) and that would help all newcomers understand what kind of community this is. I've come across some of the early discussions about copyright on WikiSource with Yann, and see the original impetus for the creation of Wikilivres. That is a very clear point: Canadian Copyright Law has more freedoms than many other countries, and a server in Canada provides that kind of legal shelter for an enlarged public domain, not available to servers hosted in the US, Europe, Russia, and the like. Also, it is obvious that everyone here is devoted to the public domain, or they would be elsewhere. As the newest technical person lending a hand, and in view of the recent events, a little more distributed organization at the top (no single owner, but a small group of the most interested/involved) would be in the best interests of the project. Hopefully this is not the end of the discussion. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Jeffmcneill, I don't think that your question provoke the discussion above; and we can certainly discus the hierarchy etc. - my (and Zephyrus') "ruffled" reaction was dedicated to the claim, might be the canadian chapter founded wikilivres, and more over to the claim, that some officers or owners managed the site as tey wanted. No. We were not a smasll but a very small community, but there were no tensions or fighting, we had a good collegial atmosphere and we did our work (which is by the way rather a "wikisource work" not a "wikipedia work"). Thus, and I wonder if I am alone with this evaluation, I will gladly discuss with everybody how to improve this work, but I am jnot ready to discus problems with some owners, ruling officers os something like that, just because (see Zephyrus' edit above) this feeling comes from another world not from the reality of this community. (And more over I will not discus about the canadian WMF chapter as the founder of Wikiklivres, as Wikilivres was never a project of WMF - everybody can read this statement on the main page). So, nice weekend, let's work - cheers < unsigned by -jkb- April 1, 2017 >


Hi, Thank you to all who are helping to set this up again. I thought that it was gone forever, and it is back, and I am sure it will soon be great again! ;oD Yann (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

how the pages in Wikilivres are to be like

To all. Especially in last days I found some new pages that are not like to represent Wikilivres as a quality domain: pages with up to 1.4 MB text, unformated, just copy&pasted, no headers etc., containing parts that don't belong there - see A Mencken Chrestomathy, see here as well etc. - and I would like to discus this basically.

  • It's difficult to say what is the maximum acceptable size, but it must be readable, and such long books must be divided into chapters etc. Up to now it was the normal and accepted practice.
  • In addition to the size, the formatting used here must also be considered.
  • If someone here uses such a long, not revised and adapted, and as usual formatted article, he can, of course, gradually work on a correct appearance, but I think it is wrong to put several pages of this sort in succession and in large numbers and stopping revise them after that. Also, I think it is wrong to leave the processing to others, that is not a team work.
  • If someone has no time to edit such pages soon, I think it is appropriate, as usual, to park such pages first in his user namespace.

I think especially now after relounching of our new Wikilivres we schould take care of a good quality to gain a new good image in internet. We want a quality work, not a high quantity of works - I cite: "...that adding the text of an entire novel here should be a lengthy process and that adding an author's entire works could take years" [Simon Peter Hughes]. Please go ahead and comment. -jkb- (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that good quality is important for visitors. Dumping large number of texts/images that need a lot of correction should be kept to user space until a certain level of quality is achieved. Better is that works should be done a few at a time. Chapter breaks are also important for readability. It might be good to have quality targets that we agree on, so that all editors can together have a shared idea of what Wikilivres should become. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but up to now we didn't need any written fixing of such rules. Might be we should fix it anyway. -jkb- (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)▲

a polite observation -- i too appreciate the value of quality, BUT there are only about 8 of us working on here (& right now i am the only one uploading any significant amount of content in english);

either we can have a decent amount of content, which is actually useful to readers/end-users, OR we can only make polished "perfect" copy, only release content once it has been fine-combed, approved, signed, sealed, etc....

...& come out with a grand total of maybe 6-12 books per year.

EVERY YEAR, a new wave of dead authors goes PD; that means, at a minimum, HUNDREDS of notable works per year. we are NOT going to accomplish anything USEFUL, if the only thing we do, is make pretty-perfect texts, one at a time

if that's all we want to accomplish here, we might as well all just go join seriously, they already have everything set up, & they are bigger & better @ processing copy than we are. we don't need a separate website just to imitate them, & do so less effectively; that's just "playing club".

if our goal is to provide a useful resource we need to be smarter, & faster, more innovative.

there are texts available, lots of them; some proofed, some not. from the gutenbergs, & from myriad other sources; whether public domain in their source countries, or not.

most of them are UNFINDABLE & inaccessible for ordinary end-users.

IF we collect them, get them online, in a pma-50 jurisdiction where hosting them is legal

ORGANISE them, so that it is easy for end-users to actually FIND things, & so that they can find ALL the works by an author in one place.

then, we are doing something useful, in REAL-WORLD TERMS; & doing something that nobody else is offering.

AND you are free to polish up the copy, as much as you like.

by all means, do so.

if proofing copy to perfection is what you want to work on, more power to you.

i'm going to work on collecting up pd pma-50 content, organising it, & actually getting it online for people to use.

it does NOT "hurt" wikilivres to have this content being uploaded. it may not be perfect copy; but, in real-world terms for our end-users, actually having a copy of a work, is INFINITELY MORE USEFUL than having nothing.

our texts can be MARKED for their quality ratings; i have absolutely no problom with that. right now, i'm usually categorising the copy as either 50% or 75%

if you want something more exacting, go nuts creating the most perfect quality-rating system you can or want to.

i'll even use it when uploading content; IF it's not impossibly difficult or time-consuming to add the tag.

but PLEASE do not obstruct me doing my work either.

will discuss the technical points of page-formatting separately

Lx 121 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate this point of view. In addition, the value (quality) of the content of Wikilivres cannot be measured only in bulk (megabytes), but rather in the usefulness to others. Accessibility is great, and is definitely something this site is devoted to, but there has to be actual humans getting value from what is here (visitors/readers) -- accessibility in practice, not just principle. The only way that happens is if documents/pages are presented in a way that:
1) the search engines can find and make sense of, and
2) that humans can interact with in a usable form.
* Non-OCR PDF/DJVU are large and not searchable, which makes them much less accessible when it comes to finding them, and making use of them.
* Unformated/uncorrected text dumps (without headers, subheads, or metadata) is equally problematic.
in reply:
i."the value (quality) of the content of Wikilivres cannot be measured only in bulk (megabytes)" -- i never said it was; but the quantity of material we can offer end-users MATTERS. end users arent going to come here for 6 polished, perfect books per year.
certainly not when gutenberg canada produces 10x that.
ii. search engine 'optimisation' is a separate technical question; there's no difference in what we are discussing here, that is relevant to bot-processing.
iii. there is an infinity of difference between "we have a copy of this work", & "we DON'T have a copy of this work. especially for end-users.
a poor or marginal copy of a work is fundamentally more userful to someone-who-needs-a-copy-of-the-text than no copy.
for example; there are a number of shakespearean plays for which no copy exists, at all, anywhere.
is that better than having a poor copy of them? WHICH is more useful to someone who is studying shakespeare?
as to the merits of pdf/djvu files, obviously it is more desirable to have a digitised text.
when we don't have that, an optical scan pdf is better than nothing. i would have thought you'd find it preferable to a poor-quality ocr, tbh.
& whether the content-text is searchable or not (& it's certainly more convenient when it is), the BOOK is findable.
for example: recently, i uploaded a .pdf of the novel 'scoop' (1938) by evelyn waugh.
the book was recently in the news as being newly-popular, because the story was "timely"/relevant to current american politics.
there is NOWHERE online that you can legally download a free copy of this work, EXCEPT "us".
Google and other search engines do not know about this book, because it isn't available in a searchable form, and there are no links to our page about this book. This means the book is essentially invisible. Because it cannot be discovered very well, it will likely stay invisible. Yes, building some links would help, but having an indexed book with full text would make it that much better. (P.S., I've found a usable epub, here is the tet (I've added it to the page you created, please now your turn to break it into chapters ^_^. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
THAT is "being useful" as far as end-users are concerned.
if we were fully set up @ our permanent address, & did a little promoting, we could be getting some "real" traffic on the site, instead of just "us".
Lx 121 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started on the new site .io/.ca

Move to Discussions?

Hi -jkb- time to move this to the sidebar as part of the Community Portal? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

yep, I did it. -jkb- (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

end of copy pasted talk -jkb- (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)