Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a very long time."
We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first.
-----Original Message----- From: M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few ranslations on en.wp myself). 011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com
No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications.
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation.
his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.
d. _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: 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
______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l