The logical flaw here comes between "use" and "translate". Although Wikipedians may and probably sometimes do, translate Wikipedia pages, from English to French etc, translating a source citation is something quite different.
I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation.
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR olicy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their riginal language unless the translation itself is verifiable. Ray On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote: Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is not allowed at Wikipedia.
2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge<saintonge@telus.net
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original language. All translations require interpretation.
Ray
______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l