I like the idea of IA because they have quite a simple upload tool, and it's the best and greatest digital library in the world. It's kinda easy, it has a great book-reader, quite easy navigability, it offers good OCR and a lot of derived files. It also has easy API for download and upload. It's a "library-platform", and unfortunately Commons it's not. You can't really find stuff in Commons, neither read it (have you tried reading a document on it?)

In T59813#3004352, @Samwilson wrote:

I updated the task description above, and it seems that this task just comes down to "a tool to upload from Google Books to the Internet Archive". Does that sound right? Is this something we want to pursue?

I was thinking about this just today. I was wondering if it's even possible to think to create a StackExchange website (you can propose one): it won't be on our servers, but AFAIU there is a precedent, with the AskUbuntu community. Alexa ratings for stackexchange sites are good, and we could even think of having a multilingual portal. In my small community (italian wikisource) we don't have time, competence and will to develop good Help pages: our documentation is messy, obsolete and newbies totally get lost. They don't understand at the beginning that the social rule is to ask other users: they get frustrated and don't have the courage to ask in Village pumps, publicly, what they may think as "dumb questions". Maybe a Q&A website is what we need in our community, and could help also different language community to understand each others tools, workflows and practices.

Created discussion for consensus in Italian Wikisource: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Bar#Visual_Editor_su_Wikisource

It seems really nice!
Thanks everyone for making this happen.

@DannyH, you should subscribe to this :-)

The technical side of the Wikisource community is tiny: I know only @Tpt who could be able (maybe) to maintain this, but unfortunately I bet he's too busy maintaining *all the rest* of Wikisource tools. If I recall correctly, this was the result of a GSoC project few years ago, and never got deployed as an extension in Wikisources. Am I right? We simply do not have people to maintain/improve it.

The tool has worked for years, but people tell me it's now broken: https://tools.wmflabs.org/bub/

In T31923#1368843, @Qgil wrote:

Wikipedia strives for neutral point of view and referenced information. Here we are discussing which features we want for us, and which tool could be the best for us.

I'm a bit lost in the conversation, but please check these links (especially the first one):

• List of SO clones: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/stack-exchange-clones
• Is SO code open source?: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14656/is-the-stack-overflow-source-code-available

@Milimetric Wow, thanks. I think that this deserves a proper Wikimedia-l thread: it should be important to make many people aware of this opportunity. Please consider it. Thanks.

@Quim Discourse comes from the very people who created StackOverflow, so they know the difference from Q&A and discussion, and Discourse is for the latter. There is no open source real alternative for StackOverflow software, it is aimed to be the "only place" for programmers to talk. I'm on mobile now, but there are interestinng links i can provide.

Hello. Is there any kind of update on this? I think this is one of the most wanted feature/tool of the whole Wikimedia world, it would be nice to understand if we are any closer to a real, usable, non-enwikipedia centric tool :-) Thanks to whoever is working on this. We wikimedians are nitpicking, but we love you.

Hi James,
for many Wikisource, implementation of the VE in the ns0 is not-so important. As you are maybe aware, we have a Page: namespace that is the place where the transcription really happens, with the scan of the page of the book. I was aware of the owrk of Tpt and Rohit (if'm not mistaken), who tried to refactor the Proofread Page extension.

Two years ago we did a survey within the international Wikisource community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikisource_Community_User_Group/Wikisource_survey_report#Visual_Editor

What can we do, as community members, to raise the priority of this? It is really important for Wikisource to have the VE active within the Page namespace. It is probably the most needed feature of Wikisource projects, and it would be an important testbed for the VE itself: Wikisource books are heavily formatted, much more than Wikipedia articles.

Just to say this is important :-) Thousands of articles rely on this.

Hi Quim, I think that what you propose makes perfect sense. If we need to, we'll create Wikisource-docs, Wikisource-tools, etc, but right now we'll probably be OK just with Wikisource.

I'd agree with Billinghurst: "Wikisource" is simple and clear enough. I can also accept a suffix or a "-radar", for the sake of coherence of Phabricator, but that is a call I cannot make (as I don't really understand what this thing does :-).