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.
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)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.
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(a)telus.net
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
David how is an exact quote a summary or
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
language. All translations require interpretation.
oundation-l mailing list