Hoi, We have the statistics to prove it.
As I indicated before, we have imported the localisations from Wikipedias, nothing was wasted. Our most precious resource are the people who help with the localisation and we do not ask them to do things that are not necessary.
As to focusing on projects, I spend my time on the things that are relevant to me. Betawiki is extremely relevant for all the MediaWiki projects I am involved in. The localisation of OmegaWiki is done at Betawiki as well. Betawiki is the best place to do localisation for MediaWiki. My time and effort is most effectively used by improving and promoting necessary infra structure. Yes, I see OmegaWiki as infra structure. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 8:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
"completed on Betawiki" does not measure all existing localization.
You said earlier: "It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised."
That's patently false - maybe it's only in 2008 that they have localisation on Betawiki, but Betawiki is not the world. I do think Betawiki is awesome, but I also think you tend to be focussed a little _too_ much on your pet projects - it used to be OmegaWiki, and now it's Betawiki. They're both great projects, but the world does not revolve around them.
Mark
On 12/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages. Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like Wolof are also being worked on.
When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective.
When
language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done
for
all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect
start
for any needed project localisation.
It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has
been
done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This
means
that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to
get a
uniform terminology used.
We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from where we can
honestly
say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Please help !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
languages
per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
that
invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is
only
in
2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the
most
relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
African
languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
practical
value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are
talking
about
Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
projects
can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and
has
sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages
the
WMF
supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
language
committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild@gmail.com>
wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from
the
topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation
mission.
If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights
or
prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those
causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l