[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

Sat Jun 18 06:20:13 UTC 2005

Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge all
wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate
Wikibooks, etc.  But that's simply for consistency's sake.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:16 AM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

I'm also a bit wary about merging all the wiktionaries into one
mega-wiktionary.  The idea about the user-interface appearing in one's
preferred language is interesting though.  There are different wiktionaries
for the same reason there are different wikipedias.  As Mark and others have
been telling for the past several months that I've contributed to wikis, we
have these multitudinous
wikipedias/wiktionaries/wikibooks/wikiquote/wiki-... sites to encourage each
language, and the thesauri become more useful and more accessible to people
through the community involvement of the users on each wiki.  The German
wiktionary grows through the efforts of those who contribute to it, as do
the English, Russian, etc.  Let the individual wiktionaries apply the GEMET
if they so choose, using the terminology they choose.  Individuals can make
a better choice than some centralized monolith can, and often faster, and
better.  And as far as I have seen, it's the individual with conviction that
improves the wikis and spreads the concept to new languages, people, and
articles.  Some of the things you want in this Ultimate Wiktionary can be
done in the individual wiktionaries, if the users want it.

And " and thus resulting in increased trade opportunities for the EC." -
Wikis are about more than simply Europe.  There's more to the world than
Europe, and the wiktionaries are not simply there to benefit Europe and its
trade opportunities.  Sounds like the kind of cultural imperialism the US
gets accused of.

Later,

James 

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:30 AM
To: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> As a result of our exploring opportunities for Ultimate Wiktionary, I 
> was pointed to LISA the Localisation Industry Standards Association. I 
> downloaded some information and was asked afterwards for some 
> information. This in turn led to the question if I was willing to 
> write an article about Wikimedia and localisation. So I did. It can be 
> found here: http://www.lisa.org/globalizationinsider/ 

The following is what he says there

>     Using this imperfect system of templates has taught us that 80% of
>     the lexicological content can be expressed using templates.
>
What evidence is there of this? Sure, we can get closer to that when 
translations are viewed as mechanical acts and we can ignore all 
subtleties of language. In reality such an attitude only goves a lot of pap.

>     The next step will be for us to combine all the
>     language-independent content in a database.
>
That's a very small part of the content.

>     Our challenge will be to translate the user interface in as many
>     languages as possible.
>
That much is already being done without Gerard's UW

>     This is the first hurdle to make the Ultimate Wiktionary
>     accessible in any language. The next step is to encourage people
>     with language knowledge to contribute to the Wiktionary by
>     providing descriptions and etymological information for various
>     terms.
>
This too is already being done in the English Wiktionary. That's what 
lexicography is all about.

>     The Ultimate Wiktionary will become extremely relevant, based on
>     the special content that it will contain. For example, we plan to
>     include the GEMET thesaurus <http://www.eionet.eu.int/GEMET>, the
>     ecological resource of the European Community (EC).
>
Although I have no doubt that this is useful information there should be 
no preference given to EC terminology. It needs to be made clear that 
different terminology used in countries which share a language with some 
member of the EC will be on an equal footing.

>     It will also be possible for users to add content in other
>     languages, making the original thesaurus even more accessible and
>     more valuable to more people. We hope to be able to cooperate with
>     organizations such as the EC in order to host other glossaries and
>     thesauri. As everyone is invited to contribute content, we
>     envision this content being translated into many more languages
>     and thus resulting in increased trade opportunities for the EC.
>
This looks like some kind of hidden agenda. Many of us have resisted any 
appearance of being dominated by the thinking and ideas of the United 
States. Any attempt to impose EC dominance should be resisted just as 
strongly.

>     The current Wiktionaries will be converted to the Ultimate
>     Wiktionary.
>
You say this with far too much conviction. At other times you appear to 
make the prediction that participants in the various projects will see 
your UW as so great that they will melt into your arms. As a sceptic I 
can accept that statement. It allows me to wait until there is something 
real to comment about; it allows others with more technical experience 
to amend your software to suit the needs of Wikimedia. I cannot and will 
not accept your flat out statement that it "will be converted" any more 
than I can suspend rationality long enough to accept Christ as my 
personal saviour.

>     This means that people will have access to the Dutch Wiktionary
>     with many words in Papiamento, the Italian Wiktionary with many
>     Neapolitan words, and the Kurdish Wiktionary with words in many
>     different Kurdish dialects. The goal with the Ultimate Wiktionary
>     is to overcome the fractured nature of individual Wiktionaries. By
>     combining them into one central repository, people will be able to
>     access a much greater variety of content, thus enabling the
>     Ultimate Wiktionary to be greater than the sum of its separate
>     Wiktionary parts.
>
This is in sharp contrast to what you said in other parts of the article

>     Contrary to what the typical LISA Member has available, we do not
>     have an organizational structure that decides what to do next. We
>     do not have policies that determine what content is to be
>     available in all Wikipedias. We do not translate content as a rule.

or again

>     As the projects grow, we find that they have different values and
>     a different view of "the Truth." These are the issues where
>     culture comes into play.

What you praise here about the Wikipedias you would condemn in 
Wiktionary. The difference in values and cultures is just as strong in 
Wiktionary as it is in Wikipedia. It needs to be respected just as much.

Ec

PS: It is not my usual habit to crosspost my comments, an I seriously 
considered posting this on only one of the lists, but since Gerard has 
chosen to put his POV on three lists it seemed appropriate that at least 
the initial rebuttal should be similarly distributed.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l