Hoi,
The notion that everyone working on Wikipedia and MediaWiki is a volunteer
is a fallacy.
The one thing I have been advocating is that the different languages and
scripts are performing technically on a level playing field. This is not the
case and there is a lot that can be achieved with modest investments. At
this stage we do not want to invest in specific languages to create content.
If a language is viable and can operate on a level playing field the
communities will do their thing in the way that fits for them.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 5 March 2011 22:27, Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, M. Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It is my hope that these decisions are
data-driven -
http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size and the
size of Wikimedia communities speaking a language as well as the
(in)frequency of bilingualism in those communities are a good place to
start.
Exactly. As far as I understand it, the language priority list *was*
created based on these metrics. However, it hadn't been updated for
years, and /that's/ why it was marked obsolete. That particular list
was obsolete; no one was rejecting multilingualism or anything like
that. It's actually the opposite: we didn't try to figure out how we
should prioritize languages because we looked at them all as equal.
All translation work is done by volunteers, and who were we to say
"your language isn't as important, we'd rather you translate into X",
especially if we hadn't really researched how to make those priority
lists? If you translate something into Hopi, Kunama, Irish, or
Pirahã, it'll get published just as quickly as if you translate
something into French, Spanish, German, or Chinese.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l