Hi Jane, hi Alex,
Yes, I agree with you that a centralized Wikisource would be quite meaningful, specially now that projects like Wikidata have shown that it is possible to have both localization and centralization living in harmony. I know that Doug (cc'ed) did some experiments with this goal in mind, but I have no idea how far he is now. Apart from the technical challenge, it also worries me the social aspect. Wikisourcerors from each Wikisource and have lived in isolation from each other for a long time. How would be a reunification perceived by the different communities? Would it be something wanted?
Andrea and me have the pending task of contacting the communities, so this is something that we should bring up among other important topics (like the creation of a Wikisource User Group: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups)
The OPW is a grant program for students similar to Google Summer of Code focused on helping bring more female contributors to open source projects. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women So yes, it is a gendergap project, but we can offer wikisource-related projects as we did with GsoC.
David --Micru
PS: Some of those plates are quite scary... I love them :)
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David and Alex, I am also starting to think that one project would be a whole lot simpler, especially given the lack of cross-referencing between projects, which would be nice to have in the wikisource of many popular wikipedia languages - especially for translated texts.
Years ago, while researching an urban legend, I took some photographs of the engravings and the table of contents of a Latin book and its Dutch translation a century later. At the time I was toying with the idea of cross referencing the stories but realized quickly there was no way to do this on Wikisource. I put my scans here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Observationes_Medicae_by_Nicolaes...
Wouldn't it be easier to have just one Wikisource and have all language-related information reside in interface layers and for the language of texts, the category structure? This would make the Lua interface easier to achieve and work on.
David, do you mean by "Outreach Program for Women" to refer to a specific wikisource project other than the general ones we have for the gendergap project?
Jane
2013/5/31, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I agree fully Micru. Obviously, my dream is something much simpler and clear-cut: a unique wikisource for all languages, since an unique project for any textual
media
is needed IMHO just as a common project for any non-textual media is running: Commons; and a common project for data now exists: Wikidata.
And now, let's go to explore Lua a little bit more.... I presume, that mw.loaderData() can read a table of Lua functions too, if I understand
Lua
table features. So, shared modules could perhaps be hosted into one data module only. Let's try ....
Alex
2013/5/31 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com
Hi all,
After a talk with Brad Jorsch during the Hackathon (thanks again Brad
for
your patience), it became clear to me that Lua modules can be localized either by using system messages or by getting the project language code (mw.getContentLanguage().getCode()) and then switching the message. This second option is less integrated with the translation system, but can serve as intermediate step to get things running.
For Wikisource it would be nice to have a central repository (sitting on wikisource.org) of localized Lua modules and associated templates. The documentation could be translated using Extension:Translate. These modules, templates and associated documentation would be then synchronized with all the language wikisources that subscribe to an opt-in list. Users would
be
then advised to modify the central module, thus all language versions would benefit of the improvements. This could be the first experiment of
having
a centralized repository of modules.
What do you think of this? Would be anyone available to mentor an Outreach Program for Women project?
Thanks, David Cuenca --Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
This seems more like "a solution in search of a problem".
What is the problem? How is the current situation not working? What are you trying to solve? Where is the review of why the split to language communities? What are the benefits?
If this is about shared tools, or better integration of specific components, then let us isolate the problems, then work to the solution. Pushing harder on WMF to get components that strengthen our community, provide a better product, and more resource productve, and are part of their ultimate plan is worthwhile. Starting with a solution isn't going to get the best result.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:22:38 -0400, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane, hi Alex,
Yes, I agree with you that a centralized Wikisource would be quite meaningful, specially now that projects like Wikidata have shown that it
is
possible to have both localization and centralization living in harmony. I know that Doug (cc'ed) did some experiments with this goal in mind,
but I
have no idea how far he is now. Apart from the technical challenge, it also worries me the social
aspect.
Wikisourcerors from each Wikisource and have lived in isolation from
each
other for a long time. How would be a reunification perceived by the different communities? Would it be something wanted?
Andrea and me have the pending task of contacting the communities, so
this
is something that we should bring up among other important topics (like
the
creation of a Wikisource User Group: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups)
The OPW is a grant program for students similar to Google Summer of Code focused on helping bring more female contributors to open source
projects.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women So yes, it is a gendergap project, but we can offer wikisource-related projects as we did with GsoC.
David --Micru
PS: Some of those plates are quite scary... I love them :)
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David and Alex, I am also starting to think that one project would be a whole lot simpler, especially given the lack of cross-referencing between projects, which would be nice to have in the wikisource of many popular wikipedia languages - especially for translated texts.
Years ago, while researching an urban legend, I took some photographs of the engravings and the table of contents of a Latin book and its Dutch translation a century later. At the time I was toying with the idea of cross referencing the stories but realized quickly there was no way to do this on Wikisource. I put my scans here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Observationes_Medicae_by_Nicolaes...
Wouldn't it be easier to have just one Wikisource and have all language-related information reside in interface layers and for the language of texts, the category structure? This would make the Lua interface easier to achieve and work on.
David, do you mean by "Outreach Program for Women" to refer to a specific wikisource project other than the general ones we have for the gendergap project?
Jane
2013/5/31, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I agree fully Micru. Obviously, my dream is something much simpler and clear-cut: a unique wikisource for all languages, since an unique project for any textual
media
is needed IMHO just as a common project for any non-textual media is running: Commons; and a common project for data now exists: Wikidata.
And now, let's go to explore Lua a little bit more.... I presume,
that
mw.loaderData() can read a table of Lua functions too, if I
understand
Lua
table features. So, shared modules could perhaps be hosted into one data module only. Let's try ....
Alex
2013/5/31 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com
Hi all,
After a talk with Brad Jorsch during the Hackathon (thanks again
Brad
for
your patience), it became clear to me that Lua modules can be localized either by using system messages or by getting the project language code (mw.getContentLanguage().getCode()) and then switching the message. This second option is less integrated with the translation system, but
can
serve as intermediate step to get things running.
For Wikisource it would be nice to have a central repository
(sitting
on wikisource.org) of localized Lua modules and associated templates.
The
documentation could be translated using Extension:Translate. These modules, templates and associated documentation would be then synchronized
with
all the language wikisources that subscribe to an opt-in list. Users
would
be
then advised to modify the central module, thus all language
versions
would benefit of the improvements. This could be the first experiment of
having
a centralized repository of modules.
What do you think of this? Would be anyone available to mentor an Outreach Program for Women project?
Thanks, David Cuenca --Micru
Hi Billinghurst,
Thanks for your sharing your concerns and sorry if I didn't outline the problems in my email. I thought the main ones were already well-known, namely: - Redundancy of templates/modules, everything has to be done again for each language Wikisource and it is not easy to benefit from the advances from other communities - Having small disperse communities makes harder to keep their tools up-to-date and to share know-how - Hard to have cross-language projects (like multi-lingual books)
While on the Amsterdam Hackathon I asked several people about why the project was split, but I didn't get a clear answer. I can imagine that it was because back in the day there were no easy ways of localizing templates, documentation, etc. but if you find any conversation or decision in the archives, please do share it.
If we, as Wikisource users, should "push harder to get components to strengthen our community", then it is a good thing to start this debate to know what is wanted. The proposed centralization of modules (see below), it is only one way of approaching it, however I think it is important to consider all options to make sure it is the best way.
Cheers, David --Micru
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:40 PM, billinghurst billinghurst@gmail.com wrote:
This seems more like "a solution in search of a problem".
What is the problem? How is the current situation not working? What are you trying to solve? Where is the review of why the split to language communities? What are the benefits?
If this is about shared tools, or better integration of specific components, then let us isolate the problems, then work to the solution. Pushing harder on WMF to get components that strengthen our community, provide a better product, and more resource productve, and are part of their ultimate plan is worthwhile. Starting with a solution isn't going to get the best result.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:22:38 -0400, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane, hi Alex,
Yes, I agree with you that a centralized Wikisource would be quite meaningful, specially now that projects like Wikidata have shown that it
is
possible to have both localization and centralization living in harmony. I know that Doug (cc'ed) did some experiments with this goal in mind,
but I
have no idea how far he is now. Apart from the technical challenge, it also worries me the social
aspect.
Wikisourcerors from each Wikisource and have lived in isolation from
each
other for a long time. How would be a reunification perceived by the different communities? Would it be something wanted?
Andrea and me have the pending task of contacting the communities, so
this
is something that we should bring up among other important topics (like
the
creation of a Wikisource User Group: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups)
The OPW is a grant program for students similar to Google Summer of Code focused on helping bring more female contributors to open source
projects.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women So yes, it is a gendergap project, but we can offer wikisource-related projects as we did with GsoC.
David --Micru
PS: Some of those plates are quite scary... I love them :)
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David and Alex, I am also starting to think that one project would be a whole lot simpler, especially given the lack of cross-referencing between projects, which would be nice to have in the wikisource of many popular wikipedia languages - especially for translated texts.
Years ago, while researching an urban legend, I took some photographs of the engravings and the table of contents of a Latin book and its Dutch translation a century later. At the time I was toying with the idea of cross referencing the stories but realized quickly there was no way to do this on Wikisource. I put my scans here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Observationes_Medicae_by_Nicolaes...
Wouldn't it be easier to have just one Wikisource and have all language-related information reside in interface layers and for the language of texts, the category structure? This would make the Lua interface easier to achieve and work on.
David, do you mean by "Outreach Program for Women" to refer to a specific wikisource project other than the general ones we have for the gendergap project?
Jane
2013/5/31, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I agree fully Micru. Obviously, my dream is something much simpler and clear-cut: a unique wikisource for all languages, since an unique project for any textual
media
is needed IMHO just as a common project for any non-textual media is running: Commons; and a common project for data now exists: Wikidata.
And now, let's go to explore Lua a little bit more.... I presume,
that
mw.loaderData() can read a table of Lua functions too, if I
understand
Lua
table features. So, shared modules could perhaps be hosted into one data module only. Let's try ....
Alex
2013/5/31 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com
Hi all,
After a talk with Brad Jorsch during the Hackathon (thanks again
Brad
for
your patience), it became clear to me that Lua modules can be localized either by using system messages or by getting the project language code (mw.getContentLanguage().getCode()) and then switching the message. This second option is less integrated with the translation system, but
can
serve as intermediate step to get things running.
For Wikisource it would be nice to have a central repository
(sitting
on wikisource.org) of localized Lua modules and associated templates.
The
documentation could be translated using Extension:Translate. These modules, templates and associated documentation would be then synchronized
with
all the language wikisources that subscribe to an opt-in list. Users
would
be
then advised to modify the central module, thus all language
versions
would benefit of the improvements. This could be the first experiment of
having
a centralized repository of modules.
What do you think of this? Would be anyone available to mentor an Outreach Program for Women project?
Thanks, David Cuenca --Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
On 2 jun. 2013, at 06:06, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Billinghurst, While on the Amsterdam Hackathon I asked several people about why the project was split, but I didn't get a clear answer. I can imagine that it was because back in the day there were no easy ways of localizing templates, documentation, etc. but if you find any conversation or decision in the archives, please do share it.
I doubt that was the reason. The primary reason was probably simply to mirror the *.wikipedia infrastructure approach and the default interface language.
If we, as Wikisource users, should "push harder to get components to strengthen our community", then it is a good thing to start this debate to know what is wanted. The proposed centralization of modules (see below), it is only one way of approaching it, however I think it is important to consider all options to make sure it is the best way.
I think that if you look at it from the 'materials', mission and maintenance of community points of view, that wikisource would truly benefit from a 'Commons' approach. It would make it a much stronger, and active community I think, with a larger degree of inter language materials sharing. The community is much more focused on preservation, transliteration, annotation etc. which are all much more language independent than wikipedia or wikivoyage will ever be (and might even benefit from 'stacking' languages).
Also increasing and strengthening the size of the community is probably much more beneficial to it than having the localized sub-communities have their own website and subcultures. Actually, it would probably work better than Commons, since most of the Commons problems actually have to do with the communication between it and the different wikipedia languages, rather then with the communication between the internal language groups. This part of the problem is a lot less likely to occur on wikisource, which is much less interwoven with the sister communities than Commons.
Though I agree that the localization problem still isn't fully solved, perhaps the challenge is to get them solved in order to be able to make such a unification happen. The big challenges I still see, mostly have to do with Categories, per page content language and of course some caching problems. We are a lot closer however compared to 5 years or so ago.
DJ
Cheers, David --Micru
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:40 PM, billinghurst billinghurst@gmail.com wrote:
This seems more like "a solution in search of a problem".
What is the problem? How is the current situation not working? What are you trying to solve? Where is the review of why the split to language communities? What are the benefits?
If this is about shared tools, or better integration of specific components, then let us isolate the problems, then work to the solution. Pushing harder on WMF to get components that strengthen our community, provide a better product, and more resource productve, and are part of their ultimate plan is worthwhile. Starting with a solution isn't going to get the best result.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:22:38 -0400, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane, hi Alex,
Yes, I agree with you that a centralized Wikisource would be quite meaningful, specially now that projects like Wikidata have shown that it
is
possible to have both localization and centralization living in harmony. I know that Doug (cc'ed) did some experiments with this goal in mind,
but I
have no idea how far he is now. Apart from the technical challenge, it also worries me the social
aspect.
Wikisourcerors from each Wikisource and have lived in isolation from
each
other for a long time. How would be a reunification perceived by the different communities? Would it be something wanted?
Andrea and me have the pending task of contacting the communities, so
this
is something that we should bring up among other important topics (like
the
creation of a Wikisource User Group: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups)
The OPW is a grant program for students similar to Google Summer of Code focused on helping bring more female contributors to open source
projects.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women So yes, it is a gendergap project, but we can offer wikisource-related projects as we did with GsoC.
David --Micru
PS: Some of those plates are quite scary... I love them :)
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David and Alex, I am also starting to think that one project would be a whole lot simpler, especially given the lack of cross-referencing between projects, which would be nice to have in the wikisource of many popular wikipedia languages - especially for translated texts.
Years ago, while researching an urban legend, I took some photographs of the engravings and the table of contents of a Latin book and its Dutch translation a century later. At the time I was toying with the idea of cross referencing the stories but realized quickly there was no way to do this on Wikisource. I put my scans here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Observationes_Medicae_by_Nicolaes...
Wouldn't it be easier to have just one Wikisource and have all language-related information reside in interface layers and for the language of texts, the category structure? This would make the Lua interface easier to achieve and work on.
David, do you mean by "Outreach Program for Women" to refer to a specific wikisource project other than the general ones we have for the gendergap project?
Jane
2013/5/31, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I agree fully Micru. Obviously, my dream is something much simpler and clear-cut: a unique wikisource for all languages, since an unique project for any textual
media
is needed IMHO just as a common project for any non-textual media is running: Commons; and a common project for data now exists: Wikidata.
And now, let's go to explore Lua a little bit more.... I presume,
that
mw.loaderData() can read a table of Lua functions too, if I
understand
Lua
table features. So, shared modules could perhaps be hosted into one data module only. Let's try ....
Alex
2013/5/31 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com
Hi all,
After a talk with Brad Jorsch during the Hackathon (thanks again
Brad
for
your patience), it became clear to me that Lua modules can be localized either by using system messages or by getting the project language code (mw.getContentLanguage().getCode()) and then switching the message. This second option is less integrated with the translation system, but
can
serve as intermediate step to get things running.
For Wikisource it would be nice to have a central repository
(sitting
on wikisource.org) of localized Lua modules and associated templates.
The
documentation could be translated using Extension:Translate. These modules, templates and associated documentation would be then synchronized
with
all the language wikisources that subscribe to an opt-in list. Users
would
be
then advised to modify the central module, thus all language
versions
would benefit of the improvements. This could be the first experiment of
having
a centralized repository of modules.
What do you think of this? Would be anyone available to mentor an Outreach Program for Women project?
Thanks, David Cuenca --Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
David Cuenca, 02/06/2013 02:22:
[...] specially now that projects like Wikidata have shown that it is possible to have both localization and centralization living in harmony.
We're VERY far from such a harmony, or maybe I'm misunderstandind what you mean here. We don't have a true solution for the problem of a multilingual wiki, Commons' pains show it well. https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Multilingual_Wikimedia_Commons_-_What_can_we_do_about_it
From what I recall, localisation was definitely not the reason for splitting. It's also wrong to assume that bringing people on the same wiki will give you a single community: you may well just lose the (senses of) communities and end up with a dispersed array of editors.
Nemo
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
[...] From what I recall, localisation was definitely not the reason for splitting. It's also wrong to assume that bringing people on the same wiki will give you a single community: you may well just lose the (senses of) communities and end up with a dispersed array of editors.
Ideally we should aim to keep that sense of communities and at the same time share tools and certain pages across Wikisources. I wonder if some day it would be technically feasible to have a way of marking certain pages as "global" so they can exist simultaneously in all language versions. That would be a boon for script/template sharing.
Micru
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org