Also, I recognize this is off-topic, but if you are using localisations from all comers, it is important to realize that not all people are what they claim. Jose77, in particular, has become a sysop at many Wikipedias and added localizations. What are the chances that he is fluent in not only Hawai'ian, but also Uyghur, Tongan, Samoan, as well as tens of hundreds of other languages?
When pressed, Joseph claims that he got these translations "from native speakers", but in the case of some of them, there have been complaints on-wiki about the translations. He also likes to push his religious agenda across many Wikis (if the main page of a Wikipedia is in a "directory" format, he will replace the different religions in the "Religion" category with topics related to Christianity; also, he has posted untranslated materials or poorly translated materials in many Wikis about his religion, the true Jesus Church).
He also has dozens of sockpuppets, for confirmation you may ask User:Kahuroa, a sysop at mi.wp, who has dealt with many of them trying to exert influence there.
In summary, I think it is important to check translations with a third party, and also to beware of people seeking to submit translations for more than about 3 languages (quadrilingualism is certainly possible, but in the case that somebody is doing this, their translations should be checked to confirm that they do in fact possess the skills they claim).
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