User talk:ජපස

Welcome
PseudoSkull (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Arecibo Message
Sorry I had to delete the page; please see the deletion log reasoning. We don't include things like binary source code because those things are more along the lines of What Wikisource includes. However, they may be included as part of a larger work. There is still the possibility, since the message was sent in 1974, that there is a freely-licensed document somewhere that describes the message and maybe even includes a picture of it, that could be included if, for example, the work was created before 1977 without a copyright notice, or it was created by the federal government. Please remember that only works that are freely licensed, such as public-domain works, can be included. If you want I could help you find one (but I only skimmed HathiTrust for a sec just now with no promising titles). Good luck, and thanks for the interesting thought. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the work was deleted from Wikipedia after having been kept there for some years. I am somewhat sympathetic with the point that the bitwise representation is a bit out-of-scope for that project, but now I am having a hard time identifying which project could properly archive this. It seems like it should be something that Wikimedia somewhere should be able to store, but I am not sure where. I think that this representation is properly reference material (also: it's not actually "code" in the proper sense nor is it an "image": it's the transcription of a radio transmission). What do you think? ජපස (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It also brings up the interesting question of "what constitutes publication"? Also, what constitutes a text? I guess the argument is that only English-language texts are to be included here and, I must admit, this transcription is not an English-language text. But it was published, I would argue, as soon as it was transmitted in 1974 inasmuch as any radio transmission may be published. Does Wikisource only allow for transcriptions to be included if they are separately published? ජපස (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what exactly it is, it certainly is not an English-language transmission so in and of itself is out of scope for that reason. If only it were in English, it might be holdable at the English Wikisource. I personally don't know much about Wikipedia's practices, but I do personally believe it's unfortunate how much useful content they remove at Wikipedia, which is one big reason why I scarcely edit there anymore. Other than Wikipedia who wouldn't accept it according to you, I don't know where the transmission data can be placed. The only other place I can think of would be Wikimedia Commons, where you could upload an image of the binary transcription, with the binary text transcription itself in the description of that image. Not a great place to put it and content placed there certainly doesn't hold encyclopedic merit, but they'd probably let you anyways. Hopefully that helps. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. Do you know what the rationale is for only archiving English-language texts here? I don't quite understand the scope arguments that I'm reading. ජපස (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale is that this is the English Wikisource, so transcriptions should be limited to English-language works. English Wikisource is meant to be a compendium of English-language source texts. There are other Wikisources like the French Wikisource or the Italian Wikisource, for example, where works in those respective languages are collected. But the Arecibo message is a unique case because it's not even in a language per se (especially since it had to be transcribed in binary), so I don't think it would be acceptable on any Wikisource project, even the Multilingual Wikisource (a project meant for works in minority languages collectively which don't yet have Wikisource subdomains). As an analogy, Wikisource projects also don't accept things like pieces of JavaScript source code, because while it is true that JavaScript is a language of sorts, it is not a language for direct human communication like English or French, but it is rather a "language" that is used to give instructions to computers, and to be readable and writeable by humans in the process. But as I said before, a book written in English that is Creative Commons-licensed and happens to contain bits of JavaScript code is still acceptable, in that book's entirety. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This makes me wonder about texts that are multilingual, archaic, written in code, etc... but this is all more of idle curiosity than anything. Also, thanks for your help at Wikipedia! ජපස (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Multilingual: There are multilingual texts at Wikisource. I think the general rule of thumb is that if the target audience is English speakers, then it belongs on the English Wikisource. But this is more of a grey area and in some cases probably up for interpretation. Archaic: Unlike other wikis in the WMF sphere, we at the English Wikisource actually host texts that were written in older forms of English such as Old English or Middle English, and also I believe Scots texts can be kept here as well. The reasoning for this is that those languages are now obscure or obsolete and are very related to English, and it would be more of a burden to keep a Wikisource for each of the languages. Written in code: If it is a book that is just a compilation of code, and it has a title in English, an anti-copyright notice in English, etc., I believe it could still be hosted but would be an edge case. Note that in my time here, I have not personally seen code transcriptions at Proposed deletions being judged in practice, but I just know what WS:WWI says about it. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)