| Revision as of 18:19, 28 March 2001 edit198.207.223.xxx (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:08, 17 May 2023 edit undoGraham87 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Importers291,498 editsm 4 revisions imported: import old edits from "PublicDomainResources/Talk" in the August 2001 database dump | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchive}} | |||
| Someone wrote "Shouldn't we use the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as a basic definition reference?" | Someone wrote "Shouldn't we use the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as a basic definition reference?" | ||
| ] responded: "To answer the question: no, 1913 is too old." | ] responded: "To answer the question: no, 1913 is too old." | ||
| I don't understand this response. We have a handful of articles from the public domain version of Britannica, which is quite old, and these articles <i>are</i> too old, because much of the information is hopelessly outdated. But a dictionary is different. A 1913 dictionary surely has a perfectly good definition of ']' for example. Since I didn't know there was a 1913 public domain dictionary, I had to dig up a very legalistic definition from the US legal code. | I don't understand this response. We have a handful of articles from the public domain version of Britannica, which is quite old, and these articles <i>are</i> too old, because much of the information is hopelessly outdated. But a dictionary is different. A 1913 dictionary surely has a perfectly good definition of ']' for example. Since I didn't know there was a 1913 public domain dictionary, I had to dig up a very legalistic definition from the US legal code. | ||
| I think that using the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged as a basic reference for definitions of words can be very helpful. | I think that using the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged as a basic reference for definitions of words can be very helpful. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
| Of course, it is important for us to remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the random copying of entries from that work can be discouraged. But using those entries as a jumping off point seems like a great idea. | Of course, it is important for us to remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the random copying of entries from that work can be discouraged. But using those entries as a jumping off point seems like a great idea. | ||
| I mean, ] is a great example. I "just knew" what a shotgun was, but never tried to put it into words. I found it very difficult to do so! A dictionary definition, especially a public domain one that I could just freely copy without questions of fair use, etc., would have been great. | I mean, ] is a great example. I "just knew" what a shotgun was, but never tried to put it into words. I found it very difficult to do so! A dictionary definition, especially a public domain one that I could just freely copy without questions of fair use, etc., would have been great. | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Well, I deleted the question because I thought it was a nonstarter, but maybe it wasn't. As you said, we aren't really after dictionary definitions here; encyclopedias are different from dictionaries. We can ''use'' text ''from'' a public domain dictionary, sure. In most cases, though, I don't think it would make much sense simply to ''cut and paste'' a definition from an dictionary into Misplaced Pages. Basically, if someone doesn't have more to say about a topic than what is in a dictionary, then we probably shouldn't just create the article just in order to paste a dictionary definition in. Using them as a jumping-off point is fine, sure, I'll go along with that. | Well, I deleted the question because I thought it was a nonstarter, but maybe it wasn't. As you said, we aren't really after dictionary definitions here; encyclopedias are different from dictionaries. We can ''use'' text ''from'' a public domain dictionary, sure. In most cases, though, I don't think it would make much sense simply to ''cut and paste'' a definition from an dictionary into Misplaced Pages. Basically, if someone doesn't have more to say about a topic than what is in a dictionary, then we probably shouldn't just create the article just in order to paste a dictionary definition in. Using them as a jumping-off point is fine, sure, I'll go along with that. | ||
| I have no objection whatsoever to putting a link to a 1913 public domain dictionary on the PublicDomainResources page. My reservations are about what people will most likely ''do'' with it. --] | I have no objection whatsoever to putting a link to a 1913 public domain dictionary on the PublicDomainResources page. My reservations are about what people will most likely ''do'' with it. --] | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| The dictionary entry for a particular topic would be helpful in giving the overview/short explanation of a topic. A much longer entry would have to follow. | The dictionary entry for a particular topic would be helpful in giving the overview/short explanation of a topic. A much longer entry would have to follow. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
| Project Guttenburg has a 1921 encyclopedia volume A online also... The data is dated but most of the classical topics in it are worth using. For example, an entry for Angola would be dated but a biography of John Adams would not necessarily be dated. | Project Guttenburg has a 1921 encyclopedia volume A online also... The data is dated but most of the classical topics in it are worth using. For example, an entry for Angola would be dated but a biography of John Adams would not necessarily be dated. | ||
| Encyclopedia is at: http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/t9.cgi?entry=200&full=yes&ftpsite=ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ | |||
| ---- | |||
| Though it may seem as something like a biography will not be dated, history is also a research area, and new facts (and even | |||
| more interpretations) are always surfacing. | |||
Latest revision as of 06:08, 17 May 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Public domain resources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Someone wrote "Shouldn't we use the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as a basic definition reference?"
Larry Sanger responded: "To answer the question: no, 1913 is too old."
I don't understand this response. We have a handful of articles from the public domain version of Britannica, which is quite old, and these articles are too old, because much of the information is hopelessly outdated. But a dictionary is different. A 1913 dictionary surely has a perfectly good definition of 'shotgun' for example. Since I didn't know there was a 1913 public domain dictionary, I had to dig up a very legalistic definition from the US legal code.
I think that using the public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged as a basic reference for definitions of words can be very helpful.
Of course, it is important for us to remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the random copying of entries from that work can be discouraged. But using those entries as a jumping off point seems like a great idea.
I mean, shotgun is a great example. I "just knew" what a shotgun was, but never tried to put it into words. I found it very difficult to do so! A dictionary definition, especially a public domain one that I could just freely copy without questions of fair use, etc., would have been great.
Well, I deleted the question because I thought it was a nonstarter, but maybe it wasn't. As you said, we aren't really after dictionary definitions here; encyclopedias are different from dictionaries. We can use text from a public domain dictionary, sure. In most cases, though, I don't think it would make much sense simply to cut and paste a definition from an dictionary into Misplaced Pages. Basically, if someone doesn't have more to say about a topic than what is in a dictionary, then we probably shouldn't just create the article just in order to paste a dictionary definition in. Using them as a jumping-off point is fine, sure, I'll go along with that.
I have no objection whatsoever to putting a link to a 1913 public domain dictionary on the PublicDomainResources page. My reservations are about what people will most likely do with it. --LMS
The dictionary entry for a particular topic would be helpful in giving the overview/short explanation of a topic. A much longer entry would have to follow.
I've used the 1913 dictionary and found that most of the definitions are the same as the modern day dictionary. It serves as a good fundamental public domain quick reference for topics.
Project Guttenburg has a 1921 encyclopedia volume A online also... The data is dated but most of the classical topics in it are worth using. For example, an entry for Angola would be dated but a biography of John Adams would not necessarily be dated.
Encyclopedia is at: http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/t9.cgi?entry=200&full=yes&ftpsite=ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/
Though it may seem as something like a biography will not be dated, history is also a research area, and new facts (and even more interpretations) are always surfacing.