Ways to Help With Compilation Projects?

[MarjaE]

It can be frustrating how many important public-domain works are only available as scanned pdfs and djvus, or poorly-ocred text.

Some other works are available as readable text on projects such as Thayer's LacusCurtius, but take work to convert to e-reader formats.

Some other works are already available in e-reader formats in projects such as Project Gutenberg, but take some work to find. For example, a search for "Roman history" will turn up "The Man in the Iron Mask," by Alexandre Dumas, which is neither, but not the works of Cassius Dio. or Theodor Mommsen

For my part, I am multiply disabled, and have severe rsi, and haven't been able to use speech-to-text/dictation software. So I don't think I can donate money, or much typing, but I'd like to know what I can do to help projects like Gutenberg.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[HarryT]

Proof-reading is a useful activity which involves minimal typing. Have you looked at the PG Distributed Proofreaders project?

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Proof-reading is a useful activity which involves minimal typing. Have you looked at the PG Distributed Proofreaders project?

In my experience, proof-reading my own work requires a lot of typing and pain, but I';ll look into it.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

In my experience, proof-reading my own work requires a lot of typing and pain, but I';ll look into it.

If you make many mistakes (like the one above in your quote), then I supposed you would have a LOT of work to do.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

If you make many mistakes (like the one above in your quote), then I supposed you would have a LOT of work to do.

And some PD books aren't scanned well to begin with too. Archive.org is a case in point for that though I understand some books at Gutenberg also have their share of scan errors too.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

In my experience, proof-reading my own work requires a lot of typing and pain, but I';ll look into it.

I find proof reading other people's work much easier than doing my own. I think that the reason why proof reading your own work can be so hard is that your mind already "knows" what's there and reads it like that even when it isn't. When reading others work, especially for the first time, you have to read what is actually on the page. (It still isn't 100% reliable, the mind still tends to automatically correct some things.)

Also, I find I am much better at proof reading a boring book than a good one. Certainly I get much more picky about them in normal reading.

Also, errors from OCR tend to be different to errors from human input. Often machine errors stand out to the human eye much more than human errors do (and probably vice-versa, but I've never asked ).

[crich70]

Originally Posted by gmw

I find proof reading other people's work much easier than doing my own. I think that the reason why proof reading your own work can be so hard is that your mind already "knows" what's there and reads it like that even when it isn't. When reading others work, especially for the first time, you have to read what is actually on the page. (It still isn't 100% reliable, the mind still tends to automatically correct some things.)

Also, I find I am much better at proof reading a boring book than a good one. Certainly I get much more picky about them in normal reading.

Also, errors from OCR tend to be different to errors from human input. Often machine errors stand out to the human eye much more than human errors do (and probably vice-versa, but I've never asked ).

I agree. We have a personal blind spot with something we have written ourselves. That's one reason why the advice to lay a project aside for a few weeks at least is given. We are more likely to have a balanced perspective on a piece after some distance has been achieved.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree. We have a personal blind spot with something we have written ourselves. That's one reason why the advice to lay a project aside for a few weeks at least is given. We are more likely to have a balanced perspective on a piece after some distance has been achieved.

Yes, laying it aside helps gain perspective on what the story is worth. I find the extra distance (in time) means that I have less emotional investment in the writing and that makes it easier to discard or rewrite the parts that aren't working. But I haven't found that it helps my proof reading all that much (except for the lousy pieces that I don't care about anyway ... not that I ever write any of those ). It's quite amazing the glaring errors I've managed to miss, over and over (and over and over and ...) again, even when something has been put aside for months.