Talk:Project Gutenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Neutrality Issue[edit]

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.

(Lexandalf (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC))


please provide lyrics of the poem[edit]

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..


Regards, Pooja Bedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.118.149 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which font?[edit]

File:Project Gutenberg logo.png Does anyone know which font the Project Gutenberg logo was set in?

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Fri 09:17, wikitime= 01:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Affiliated Projects[edit]

In the list of affiliated projects, are PG-EU and Project Gutenberg Europe the same web-site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.193.107.182 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed establishing date[edit]

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)

Dubious[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

time line[edit]

Is there any way a timeline chart or graph could be added showing how many people were accessing the archive each year from inception? Was it only available through university sites up to a certain year? For organizations its helpful if you can see how widely known and accessible they were at various dates?

72.95.153.31 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Project Gutenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

words like "sham" and "mangled" in a questionable section?[edit]

‎In the List of affiliated projects, Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press section, words such as "sham" and "mangled" are used when accusing a company of basically pirating from wikipedia and gutenberg. The company's actions sound offensive, but the accusation and wording seem inappropriate for a wikipedia article. The citation links are only taking me to a page bereft of info? This section was added on 27 February 2016. Is this original research? Is my browser not taking me to the right pages? I don't want to just delete someone's work, but I don't have the connections to find good sources. Poidkurdo (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)