Talk:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Anglicanism

The original online version of this text was problematic in several respects.

1. The text regarding statistical information was reordered and treated as a separate section. The hardcopy text shows the table and statistical information in the first paragraph. The online version moved this information to a separate section at the end of the article. While this may create a "more readable" article, it violates the integrity of the text.
2. The online text includes section headings and subheadings that do not exist in the hardcopy text. Many may have been added to "readability", however, this also violates the integrity of the text. In addition, and more troubling, the language used in the headings could have been viewed as editorial in nature and adding a slant to the original article.

One editorial change is pervasive through every online article -- paragraph breaks. In the hardcopy text, all text between the headings are in a single paragraph. This makes the text difficult to read. Paragraph breaks are added in this version as well, however, the breaks have been changed in several areas from the other online versions to more closely follow the natural breaks in the hardcopy text. Paragraph breaks are far less numerous in this online version.

A wiki-coded version of the table from the hardcopy text is included in this online version. It is similar in most respects to the tables included in other online versions.

Several errors have been corrected in the reference section of the article.

Thanks!

--Saint Wiki I 03:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I generally agree with this approach. It is sometimes difficult to define the borderlines of textual integrity. I don't think it needs to extend to maintaining typographical conventions, paragraph breaks or even formatting. Section titles are a little more difficult. I would not feel bound to section titles that have been added by others after publication. If these headings were not a part of the original work they could follow the usual convention of being enclosed in single square brackets, whether included by us or by our sources.

—unsigned comment by Eclecticology (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2007.