I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
luke
"luke brandt" shojokid@gmail.com writes:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks. Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
My advice: Don't even think the thought.
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
"luke brandt" shojokid@gmail.com writes:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks. Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
I'm still waiting for the content-driven fork of enwiki :/
On 10/26/06, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
I have thought this before and realized that the benefits such would bring nowhere near outweigh the cost in terms of length of discussion, time spent, people dishearted, misunderstandings created, and just pure effort wasted. Languages aren't interchangeable, they're are attached to cultures who tend to sustain their own perspective on many things. Trying to navigate all these differences and actually create consensus about what should be policy would be an utter nightmare no one will want to do for a significant period of time - especially not volunteers.
sm
luke brandt wrote:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
Only that it's an incredibly bad idea. Articles in English, for example, are the product of many people coming to a consensus about a subject to arrive at NPOV. Articles on the same subject will have gone through similar processes with a different group of editors, but may have very well come to a different NPOV. Your suggestion would require that all languages arrive at the same NPOV. I would prefer not opening that can of worms.
Ec
On 26/10/06, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed.
What does "amalgamate" mean, exactly? I am not convinced of any great need for all the projects to have identical policies.
Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
Personally, I wouldn't mind if we all converged on de.wp or es.wp's image policy, but I think there would be significant disagreement.
Formatting? Layout? What does this mean exactly? This is one of the areas I would least expect to have policy convergence, given that each written language has its own history and tradition.
Wikis evolve at different rates, and so do their policies. Many small wikis might not even HAVE written policies on many key issues. You can understand that a small community of eager editors can think of better things to do than think up or translate twenty key policies.
Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 10/26/06, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this; just start writing and structuring your thoughts.
On 10/26/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/26/06, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested. The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this; just start writing and structuring your thoughts.
Yes, documenting differences would be an excellent idea. I believe that informally, a lot of policies are derived from one project or the other. But that many also originate in a project because they give an answer to a need arising at one point in time.
As to why I personally believe that unifying the policies is a very unpractical thing to do, just ask yourself and five other people from different cultures what length of time they'd put behind the phrase "It was a very long meeting".
I've done it in a room with 15 people and we came up with so many different answers (a long meeting was from 20 minutes up to a 8 hours meeting) that I started grasping the differences that culture (in the case of Wikimedia, it would be national culture or project culture or whatever other thing that makes people and communities different).
I believe that different people will give different answers to the same issues. People may learn from each other, or may not. And that is their choice. I don't believe that anyone should impose their solutions on others. Translation is not only a language issue, it is also an interpretation issue, so even in the unlikely case that all communities would agree on policies, their translation in different languages would probably already transform the policy just because it refers to different concepts in the first place, although they have the same name.
(hey, we should probably try to start with "what is the role and definition of a sysop in your project". That one will probably show the range of different understandings)
Delphine
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:33:15 +0200 "Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this; just start writing and structuring your thoughts.
Now that was a strike of genius! I will even volunteer for such a project!
Growth and love!
Halvor (User:meco)
-- email to and from this person will be subject to public availability
Keep in mind that Erik had expressed such an idea on his Campaign Platform.
On 10/27/06, magiske prosesser magipro@organizer.net wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:33:15 +0200 "Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this; just start writing and structuring your thoughts.
Now that was a strike of genius! I will even volunteer for such a project!
Growth and love!
Halvor (User:meco)
-- email to and from this person will be subject to public availability _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org