Talk:The Annotated "Ulysses"

I don't think that user-generated annotations should be welcome on Wikisource. At least it should be possible to read the text without annotations. ThomasV (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree, but the proposal is to, apparently, contribute an annotated edition published in the 1920s. Another version, is at Ulysses. I'll ask that the user discontinue their rolling this out and seek assistance is adhering to guidelines and conventions. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, the same text is already at Ulysses (novel) ? So, this user is merely duplicating the text in order to annotate it ? It seems to me that this should not be allowed. If this is allowed, can I create a third copy of the text, in order to add my own personal annotations ? ThomasV (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems so, how they know it is the same edition has not been stated. Ditto. Very strongly agree. Under the current guidelines at en, yes, add what you like to a page - there is no constraint. If you finish it will be a first, only retaining the guidelines and proposed policies on translation and annotation is enthusiastically supported. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [edit conflicted, modified statement] If you finish it will be a first! Retaining the guidelines and proposed policies on allowing translation and annotation is enthusiastically supported, not the effort in setting the 'how-to's and building a community that will actually do the annotating, making pre-publication subpages in a project, checking, proofing, then issuing after completion and peer review. What we have is largely rubbish, or fugitive content from wikipedia! Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started this project, I honestly believed that I was making a serious and useful contribution to Wikisource. It was never my intention to hijack the site for my own use. Before beginning this project I studied the Wikisource Annotations help page. Among the annotated texts listed there is The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde, which is described as a "Wikisource annotation project". Clearly, Wikisourcerors have contributed these annotations. I understood that to mean that "user-generated annotations" are welcome on Wikisource, whatever the personal opinion of individual Wikisourcerors on the matter may be. I believed that Ulysses, one of the most allusive novels ever written, would greatly benefit from a similar treatment. As for the method of achieving this, "The exact method of annotating the text is up to the editors involved ... editors are encouraged to experiment and try new methods." Each page of Ulysses contains so many allusions that it would be very cumbersome to have all the annotations for a given episode (one of which runs to more than 150 pages) on the one wikisource page. There are several different editions of Ulysses, but each of them has its own detractors. The original 1922 edition (the only one in the public domain in the USA) has been recently republished with its original pagination. As for a clean unannotated version of the text: that is already available on Wikisource. I'm willing to modify my approach to this project if I am in breach of any Wikisource rules or protocols. But scanning all 734 pages of the text would be a much more time-consuming task than the one I have in hand. Also I have no experience of working with these djvu files, though I suppose I should learn how to use them if they are so important here. I will suspend work on this project until a consensus has been reached. Eroica (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only support you're likely to receive is an individual's consent to continue, not for the work itself. I put it to you that if your work is a valuable source of annotations, why would you not publish that instead, indeed, there would little to stop anyone else appropriating and selling your efforts. The countering situation would be that the work lacked value, why would a library wish to host that? We both recognise the problems with editions of Joyce, I would not wish additions from unattributed edits to confound those seeking verifiable content. Wikibooks does give support to this, why not approach that community with this proposal. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)