|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Gutenberg article.|
|Project Gutenberg received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
William & Mary Law Review
A paragraph under the "criticism" section seemed to lack a neutral point of view and since it was also lacked any citation. I thought it was highly likely that it was original research so I decided to remove it from the article. If someone wants to go through it to fix the neutrality and cite the claims, it is below for easy access:
- How Project Gutenberg recognizes volunteers' efforts in making classic literary works available to the public has also engendered criticism. Those who do the time-consuming work of producing and donating the initial etext files are typically credited within the introduction. But they may feel that others who later process their donated files are being unrealistically credited as "co-producers." Transforming the utilitarian plain text files that have been the Project Gutenberg staple into an HTML format, for instance, typically requires only a very small fraction of the effort needed to produce the original text file.
please provide lyrics of the poem
TO, Whomsoever is concern,
I am student of M.A. (Final) and i realy wanted the complete poem of lyrical ballad so that i can read it by heart and get good marks.kindly provide complete details as well as complete poem..
File:Project Gutenberg logo.png Does anyone know which font the Project Gutenberg logo was set in?
List of Affiliated Projects
Fixed establishing date
The infobox was displaying "12 January 1971 (First document posted)" for the Established info but this is wrong since the project's 1st published document lists its release date as (Dec 1, 1971) under Bibrec tab of the mentioned link. I fixed the Infobox's establishing date according to the bibliographic record info.
I doubted the wrong date because the project's idea came to belated Mr. Hart on the 4th of July 1971. So, I checked the article's history from newer to older till found this edit (diff) from 2013 that caused the problem. The correct date was displayed before this problematic edit. Thanks! SamzY (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The criticism section says:
- "The text files use the legacy format of plain ASCII, wrapped at 65–70 characters, with paragraphs separated by a double-line break. In recent decades the resulting relatively bland appearance and the lack of a markup possibility have often been perceived as a drawback of this format"
The source is from 2000 and a dead link nor on Wayback so it's probably impossible to verify. But more so this seems like a dubious criticism as plain text is the perfect format for converting to whatever other format you want. The way it's worded "In recent decades.." sounds like someone's misguided opinion who thinks plain ascii is from some distant past decades ago. The Project isn't even that old. If the project was started today, they would probably still use plain text. And the idea that plain text "lacks markup possibility" is laughable as it can be simply imported into any markup language. -- GreenC 19:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. PG does publish in multiple formats if you go look at any book. .txt, .epub, .pdf, ... Updating this section does seem reasonable and necessary. Acebarry (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is a frequent criticism of Project Gutenberg. It is a pain in the ass; even simple markup, like bold and italics aren't handled in standard way, and anything more complex is very hard. And it's impossible to actually reformat text for printing or screen scaling, once you've got block quotes and poetry. It's certainly more complex in the current day, where HTML is used for a lot of works and there are formats autogenerated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts on Using Website Infobox Instead of Library?
This project falls in the gray area of library and website. However, I feel that using the website infobox might better suit Project Gutenberg. Any thoughts would be appreciated! Acebarry (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)