Hi.
Preliminary: This posting is *NOT* meant to re-incite a discussion that has already taken place and is already over: namely, the debates about the deletion of [[Template:User en-5]] and its equivalents for other languages.
I just wanted to note one thing that struck me as significant and no-one else seems to have brought this up anywhere in the discussion (the AfD discussion; I haven't followed the mailing list):
The entire discussion blatantly reflects the stereotypical English-speakers' language ignorance, which postulates that a native speaker is necessarily "perfect" or "best", and a non-native speaker is necessarily worse than a native speaker. The entire discussion assumes that "native speaker" is an adequate label for a level of skill.
In reality, most non-native English speakers I know speak and write English way better than an average native speaker. In reality, among all speakers (native or non-native) there are huge variations in the level of skill, ranging from "lolz asl?" to Pulitzer-prize winning prose. It is *that* which the Babel templates are trying to gauge, *not* whether someone is a native speaker or not.
Timwi
On 4/25/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Hi.
Preliminary: This posting is *NOT* meant to re-incite a discussion that has already taken place and is already over: namely, the debates about the deletion of [[Template:User en-5]] and its equivalents for other languages.
...
In reality, most non-native English speakers I know speak and write English way better than an average native speaker. In reality, among all speakers (native or non-native) there are huge variations in the level of skill, ranging from "lolz asl?" to Pulitzer-prize winning prose. It is *that* which the Babel templates are trying to gauge, *not* whether someone is a native speaker or not.
Timwi
Really? That's odd, because most of the non-native speakers I've met on Wikipedia were noticeably worse than native speakers.
~maru
On 4/25/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Really? That's odd, because most of the non-native speakers I've met on Wikipedia were noticeably worse than native speakers.
Those that aren't noticeably "bad" will not stick out to you as non-native speakers.
Timwi
That would be true, except that I have a pretty good idea of the nationalities of various editors, and the non-native ones are noticeably worse. And besides, as others have pointed out, a crappy native speaker's writings are just plain *different* (as I know all too well from their frequent contributions to Star Wars pages) than a crappy non-native speaker's. To me, the difference is fairly striking.
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 4/25/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Really? That's odd, because most of the non-native speakers I've met on Wikipedia were noticeably worse than native speakers.
Those that aren't noticeably "bad" will not stick out to you as non-native speakers.
That would be true, except that I have a pretty good idea of the nationalities of various editors, and the non-native ones are noticeably worse. And besides, as others have pointed out, a crappy native speaker's writings are just plain *different* (as I know all too well from their frequent contributions to Star Wars pages) than a crappy non-native speaker's. To me, the difference is fairly striking.
I don't see how that difference is in any way relevant to this thread. A crappy native speaker is no more useful to Wikipedia than a crappy non-native speaker.
Timwi
I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists, writers, and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only use the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a native, but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on Wikipedia is often subpar).
I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who want to use it.
On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists, writers, and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only use the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a native, but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on Wikipedia is often subpar).
I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who want to use it.
I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty well.
What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more appropriate...no?
Steve
On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists, writers, and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only use the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a native, but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on Wikipedia is often subpar).
I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who want to use it.
I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty well.
What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more appropriate...no?
Steve
I've used them on non en wikipedia's when I've needed to find people who will understand me.
-- geni
Steve Bennet writes:
What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the world via babel boxes actually have?
Speaking only for myself, I often try to talk to people from all the different language editions of wikipedia. I like to know what level of English a person feels comfortable with so that I can try to accomodate them as much as possible if necessary. I enjoy taking the time to review things that I have written, asking myself whether I have used an obscure word when a common word would suffice, etc.
Also, I am myself a language learning: spending time every day studying German, and just now getting to the point where I might consider upgrading my babel box from de-1 to de-2. When I do, I really hope that more Germans will try to write to me (using common words rather than obscure ones) so that I can make new friends and learn new things.
We are an international project, and I think that babel boxes are great for helping us to find other people who are interested in the same languages.
On 02/05/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I often try to talk to people from all the different language editions of wikipedia. I like to know what level of English a person feels comfortable with so that I can try to accomodate them as much as possible if necessary. I enjoy taking the time to review things that I have written, asking myself whether I have used an obscure word when a common word would suffice, etc.
Now that's a good point - WP's other than en. So perhaps someday a French speaker will realise he can chat to me in French on en, rather than in English. Probably a more likely scenario with less common languages though.
I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real challenge for the following reasons: * the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a user setting?) * it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave it in English? * different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup. For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top, rather than at the bottom. * no single login ;)
It would be good if the barriers to English speakers contributing to non-English Wikipedias could be reduced somewhat. Or even if some mechanisms whereby in one hit you could alert all the talk pages of all the interwiki articles that link to/from this article that there is some juicy new image/chunk of text/piece of news that they might want to add.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 02/05/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I often try to talk to people from all the different language editions of wikipedia. I like to know what level of English a person feels comfortable with so that I can try to accomodate them as much as possible if necessary. I enjoy taking the time to review things that I have written, asking myself whether I have used an obscure word when a common word would suffice, etc.
Now that's a good point - WP's other than en. So perhaps someday a French speaker will realise he can chat to me in French on en, rather than in English. Probably a more likely scenario with less common languages though.
It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...
I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real challenge for the following reasons:
- the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a
user setting?)
Yes. See [[Special:Preferences]]. I've got accounts (and have edited on) the French, German, Italian and Polish Wikipedias (doing image replacement mostly), even though I have no understanding of Italian or Polish, and can barely remember a few words of French and German from school.
- it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave
it in English?
Babelfish? :)
- different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top, rather than at the bottom.
Different social customs as well.
- no single login ;)
They're working on it ;-)
It would be good if the barriers to English speakers contributing to non-English Wikipedias could be reduced somewhat. Or even if some mechanisms whereby in one hit you could alert all the talk pages of all the interwiki articles that link to/from this article that there is some juicy new image/chunk of text/piece of news that they might want to add.
Learning other languages would be a good start. I find it extremely distasteful that native English speakers (especially certain people from a country which shall not be named) expect that everyone speaks their language, and worse, their particular version of it.
On 02/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...
I can understand that, particularly if the people in question do both speak English to an acceptable degree. But, in terms of "getting the encyclopaedia written", I don't see a major problem with two editors carrying on a conversation in Lugandan while debating how best to write an article about Ugandan culture, literature etc...
Perhaps the unspoken ban on languages other than English contributes to the "systemic bias"?
Yes. See [[Special:Preferences]]. I've got accounts (and have edited on) the French, German, Italian and Polish Wikipedias (doing image replacement mostly), even though I have no understanding of Italian or Polish, and can barely remember a few words of French and German from school.
Oh, thanks!
Babelfish? :)
What a pity that babelfish, in the 6 or 7 years I've been using it, hasn't added any significant number of new languages.
Different social customs as well.
Yep. Minefield.
Learning other languages would be a good start. I find it extremely distasteful that native English speakers (especially certain people from a country which shall not be named) expect that everyone speaks their language, and worse, their particular version of it.
Definitely, but learning 20+ languages is no easy task! Other than French, I can read Spanish more or less, and can pick out bits of German. But even to get to basic textual conversational competency is a fair challenge. I'm keen to have a go though :)
Steve
On 5/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...
Imbojay isay otnat ayay oodgay Enevolentbay Ictatorday. Iyay aysay eway agestay ayay utinymay anday aketay overay ethay Ikimediaway Oundationfay anday inallyfay ethay orldway. Oomay hayay hayay hayay hayay!
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real challenge for the following reasons:
- the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a
user setting?)
Try the hebrew wikipedia. The interface is reversed.
- it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave
it in English?
Generaly
-- geni
On 02/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Try the hebrew wikipedia. The interface is reversed.
Yes, I did once. What a brainf**** trying to find my way back again :)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
- different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top, rather than at the bottom.
The Classic skin also has the category tags at the top. Personally, I like it like that.
Ec
On 03/05/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top, rather than at the bottom.
The Classic skin also has the category tags at the top. Personally, I like it like that.
Oh, I just meant they put them in the code up the top rather than at the bottom - then, as you say, the skin renders them wherever the hell it wants to. :)
Steve
On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists,
writers,
and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only
use
the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a
native,
but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on Wikipedia is often subpar).
I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who want to use it.
I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty well.
What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more appropriate...no?
The reasons Jimbo gives are pretty valid. I know a few other languages, but I find my skills in those are largely useless in the context of Wikipedia, therefore I don't list them. :-)
Another problem Babel template for me is tlh-0. I want to learn Klingon, I just don't speak it!
On 5/2/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists,
writers,
and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only
use
the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a
native,
but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on Wikipedia is often subpar).
I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who want to use it.
I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty well.
What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more appropriate...no?
The reasons Jimbo gives are pretty valid. I know a few other languages, but I find my skills in those are largely useless in the context of Wikipedia, therefore I don't list them. :-) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 4/26/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I don't see how that difference is in any way relevant to this thread. A crappy native speaker is no more useful to Wikipedia than a crappy non-native speaker.
Timwi
You've completely missed my point. My point was that the distinction was valid because on average native speakers are better than non-native speakers for whatever language we are talking about, an observation that meshes with common sense and my personal observations.
~maru
Timwi wrote:
In reality, most non-native English speakers I know speak and write English way better than an average native speaker. In reality, among all speakers (native or non-native) there are huge variations in the level of skill, ranging from "lolz asl?" to Pulitzer-prize winning prose. It is *that* which the Babel templates are trying to gauge, *not* whether someone is a native speaker or not.
The distinction is routinely made in the language translation community however, it's not just a Wikipedia thing and it's not just an English language thing. It's simply that it's extremely rare for a non-native speaker to have absorbed all the culture and reflexes that inform a native speaker. For instance, a highly-educated non-native might not realize that he/she is using words that are too big to be appropriate in a particular context, or ones that passed out of common usage years ago and are now only found in books from the 1980s. Ironically, this is orthogonal to educational level and intelligence; even less-educated native speakers can pick out the foreigners, even though they might not be able to articulate what cues they are noticing.
Of course, since Babel templates are self-assigned, they say as much about ego and confidence as about actual linguistic skill.
Stan
It's simply that it's extremely rare for a non-native speaker to have absorbed all the culture and reflexes that inform a native speaker. [...] even less-educated native speakers can pick out the foreigners, even though they might not be able to articulate what cues they are noticing.
This might apply to writing novels or translating films or something, but surely not to Wikipedia.
Timwi
On 4/26/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
It's simply that it's extremely rare for a non-native speaker to have absorbed all the culture and reflexes that inform a native speaker. [...] even less-educated native speakers can pick out the foreigners, even though they might not be able to articulate what cues they are noticing.
This might apply to writing novels or translating films or something, but surely not to Wikipedia.
Timwi
Considering the number of problems caused by misunderstandings (cultural or otherwise) it may well apply to wikipedia.
-- geni
Timwi wrote:
It's simply that it's extremely rare for a non-native speaker to have absorbed all the culture and reflexes that inform a native speaker. [...] even less-educated native speakers can pick out the foreigners, even though they might not be able to articulate what cues they are noticing.
This might apply to writing novels or translating films or something, but surely not to Wikipedia.
I don't have any good real-life examples to put up here, but likely cases would include judgement whether a particular phrasing is neutral or slanted, or what is the most common term for something. For instance, native US speakers have a finely-tuned sense of when the "N-word" is offensive or not (as our article explains in some depth), and considering the number of our articles that use the word, it would be good to have editors that know how to use it appropriately in articles. I suspect that even an average high-school senior from Arkansas would get it right more often than an anthropologist from Sweden.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
I don't have any good real-life examples to put up here, but likely cases would include judgement whether a particular phrasing is neutral or slanted, or what is the most common term for something.
One of the best writers of English on the projects is Erik Müller, a German. His English is much better than the average English speaker and indeed much better than even a lot of Wikipedians.
Even so, I will rarely notice him writing something that doesn't sound quite right. Usually this is not quite an _error_ but just some kind of _oddness_. His English is German-flavored.
I have no opinion about the usefulness of babel boxes identifying native speakers. I do agree that proficiency in a language is not always exactly the same thing as being native or not. But I still think that there is a difference in the kinds of errors that native speakers of a language make versus the kinds of errors that others make.
On 5/2/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
One of the best writers of English on the projects is Erik Müller, a German. His English is much better than the average English speaker and indeed much better than even a lot of Wikipedians.
Even so, I will rarely notice him writing something that doesn't sound quite right. Usually this is not quite an _error_ but just some kind of _oddness_. His English is German-flavored.
The worst thing about it is that I'm speaking and using English so much that it's taking a toll on my German. Whenever I speak at a conference in Germany, people later come up to me, with a slightly confused look, and ask me: "That was very interesting, Mr. Möller, but I have just one last question. Where are you _originally_ from?"
The Brits tell me I sound American, the Germans tell me I sound like a foreigner, and the Americans tell me I'm "German flavored". And you still didn't get the umlaut right, you insensitive clod! ;-) It's Möller, not Müller. Unless you were talking about some other guy, in which case you can disregard this posting. ;-)
Erik
On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:23:15 -0400, you wrote:
I have no opinion about the usefulness of babel boxes identifying native speakers.
There is one editor I encounter frequently, a French Canadian, who identifies as a native speaker of English but whose English is idiosyncratic to the point where I often have to read it multiple times before I understand what he's trying to say. I do not believe this is a flaw in my comprehension skills... Guy (JzG)
Stan Shebs wrote:
Of course, since Babel templates are self-assigned, they say as much about ego and confidence as about actual linguistic skill.
Although I have found them to be remarkable accurate overall. The other day I almost teased someone who was en-2 that she should change it to en-3 or even higher, because her english was good, but after further discussion I realized that the assessment was valid. :)