5,953
edits
Project:Quality policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{menu bar}} {{header}} The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project is committed to ensuring the highest possible quality of the texts that are available on our website. The project’s...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{menu bar}} | {{menu bar}} | ||
{{header}} | {{header}} | ||
{{About links}} | |||
The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project is committed to ensuring the highest possible quality of the texts that are available on our website. | The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project is committed to ensuring the highest possible quality of the texts that are available on our website. | ||
The | Our "mission statement" and practical goal is to make Wittgenstein's texts freely available online – where "freely" means <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre both for free and with a free licence]</span> – in as many languages as possible. However, we are painfully aware that free content has an inherent potential for very wide reach, to the point that, for example, a free translation may become the default precisely by virtue of being free and regardless of its quality – i.e., potentially despite not being as good as a non-free translation. | ||
Therefore, we take the issue of quality extremely seriously and we strive to make both the original texts and the translations . | |||
The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s scope is more similar to that of a publishing house than to that of an academic journal. | |||
Based on the information we gathered, we elected to rely heavily on trusted translators, an approach which in turn is grounded in the idea that no number of qualified revisions can make a bad translation into a good one; while of course all translations are proofread (often by more than one person, before and after typesetting), we haven’t been thinking about a true peer-review system, precisely because of the difference between our project’s workings and those of a journal. | Based on the information we gathered, we elected to rely heavily on trusted translators, an approach which in turn is grounded in the idea that no number of qualified revisions can make a bad translation into a good one; while of course all translations are proofread (often by more than one person, before and after typesetting), we haven’t been thinking about a true peer-review system, precisely because of the difference between our project’s workings and those of a journal. | ||