Project:Quality policy: Difference between revisions

The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s scope is more similar to that of a publishing house than to that of an academic journal.

After researching the best practices of publishing houses, we elected to rely heavily on trusted translators. This approach 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.

In order for you to have a better understanding of our goals, I would also like to make it clear that the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project is inspired by the “ethos” of online free-culture projects. We are painfully aware of the risks that free content can bring along, especially, as you say, in terms of bad content becoming the default just because it is free. At the same time, we programmatically prefer publishing content that is good instead of not publishing content that is not excellent.