This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
The mywikibiz link has been added and removed several times, please discuss here before any more edits are made concerning this link. And please respect that any discussions/conflicts/controversies/whatever going on elsewhere have no place on this talk page or in edits to this article. The link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content...I don't see any significant additional contribution that would help it meet External Links guidelines. Flowanda | Talk 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored the link, as it is not a 'source', i.e. no claim in the article depends on it. On whether the site is 'noted for its authority' or not, that part of the site is maintained by me. The text in question is simply a scanned and corrected version of an edition of the book. It is not available anywhere else online. On the 'Logic Museum' itself, this is a resource used by many academics who want access to difficult-to-find material. It contains mostly reference material and no OR. E.g.
Peter Damian, why not link to another source, all we have is your word that the text is authentic. Your assertation that it's a link not a source, is somewhat confusing. Whether or not it's being used as part of a cite or an external link doesn't matter. Please seek a third opinion or consult the reliable sources noticeboard. You really shouldn't just keep adding the material without a proper discussion. Alastairward (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the link is quite proper, so I will restore it. It is a Public Domain original source and is 100% relevant to the article. Peter Damian's word is quite good enough that it is accurate. I don't think that anybody is likely to forge a scan of an extant 14th century book on logic, so IMHO it is hardly necessary. Aside from that dubious doubt, the web host is of very little importance in such a convenience link case; the source for wikipedia is more properly considered to be Ockham and the Summa Logica rather than the particular website.John Z (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, apparently it has been "corrected" (see above), what do you say to that? Why is the mywikibiz article considered a valid external link and not this? Also, why is Peter's word good enough? Alastairward (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what "corrected" means here. Corrections of imperfect OCR are perfectly OK, which is what I assume Peter means. (Corrections to typos in the book scanned should be noted). The wikisource is fine, I'll add it to the article, but seems less complete than the wikibiz link. There really is no reason to consider the wikibiz link differently from a wikisource link - both are works in progress, perfectly appropriate to link to while in progress, but since there is a clear ultimate target - reproduction of the original, they are both stable enough. Look at User:John Vandenberg's talk page - it is probably going to be copied to wikisource eventually. The only issue here is authenticity of the material hosted. It could be from a porno site for all that matters. Taking Peter's word on WP:AGF is more than enough, wikipedia would be impossible without taking people's word. Common sense, that no one makes fake scans of medieval logic texts in Latin would be enough too. I would vouch for the text's accuracy but I only have volumes I and II, not III.John Z (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Alastair could you please stop reverting. The Wikisource version you linked to is incomplete - it only goes to chapter 6. I recently scanned in the rest of the book and placed it on MyWikiBiz. This is the only complete version on the net. Do you understand this? You could easily have verified by following the links and reading the chapter headings. I am rapidly losing my patience with your childish behaviour. Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, if anyone tries to take the version I made at MWB and moves it to Wikisource, I will not release the rest of the book which is preparation. Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that "rapidly losing" your patience is any reason for you not to assume good faith or to stop being polite. Nor is it any reason for me to stop editing wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, the logicmuseum link is still the best copy of this work that is available online. Therefore I think we should re-add the link to this Wikipedia page. John Vandenberg(chat) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, based on the above I added this link. Someone please revert my addition if there is some kind of problem with the site or with the copyright of the translation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
little mistake in the headline "Part VI. On Fallacies (in 18 chapters)"