In a message dated 8/18/2005 5:48:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sabine_cretella@yahoo.it writes:
When talking about contents we can also think about companies that maybe would feature an article paying it ... why not? It is a contribution as well and we can get things done. And why not say: if you want this article to be translated you also have to give something of something that is important to other projects? Example: I have an article translated into English (and really this is not "so much needed") - in addition to that I pay for another article in any of the languages that are "important to develop" - so everyone is happy.
Sure it is a contribution, but what would that do to our credibility. Having companies pay for articles, especially feature articles, raises the question of whether they are simply advertising pieces in the guise of articles, or genuine NPOV coverage. If a company pays us to write or feature an article, does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their POV as well? What about if a political or religious group tries to do the same thing? To what degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage against NPOV.
I am confident that the community will reject this idea.
Danny
Sure it is a contribution, but what would that do to our credibility.
Nothing. Books and Encyclopedias have always been translated and did not loose anything about their credibility for that.
Having companies pay for articles, especially feature articles, raises the question of whether they are simply advertising pieces in the guise of articles, or genuine NPOV coverage.
It is a wikipedia article that is going to be translated (therefore npov) - and it is a wikipedia article afterwards and therefore npov and editable for anyone.
If a company pays us to write or feature an article, does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their POV as well?
no - since whoever wants such a translation knows that the article is already npov - so he wants this content translated and not re-written to his/her favour
What about if a political or religious group tries to do the same thing?
see above: any article for wikipedia is there to be improved - also the translated ones ...
To what degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage against NPOV.
I am confident that the community will reject this idea.
well ... see: if there is a translated article and you don't even know about this and then it is uploaded it is treated like any contribution - people will have a look at it and say it is fine or modify it
if you know that an article is translated and then it is uploaded I suppose you will have a closer look to make sure it is correct and npov, right? so anyway it is better to know this
what if anyone takes any article without telling you, translates it and then puts a bit of pov there? this is not wanted ... the procedure is the same, only it is less checked than the one we know to be translated I suppose
so think about a translator doing such a job: it is his credibility and professionality that depends on a correct translation of an article - so if he does not work well this will be known and it is useless to say what this means to the carreer since this should be obvious to anyone - what does a correct article instead mean? it would be a piece of text to show in his/per portfolio of translations ... so it makes only sense for a translator to do a good job
what you are saying of religious or political groups can happen anyway - it is even more probable that if it happens, this happens in background without anyone knowing it
then: anyone is free to translate whatever is published under gfdl - if you want this or not
any wikipedia can decide if leave an article or not
I also can take an article, have it translated under gfdl and only use it for my purposes on my website indicating its source and stating gfdl + providing the text of the license on my website and anyone can do this also adding pov - so isn't it better to have things in an npov enviroment being checked by many people?
so the community might approve or reject this idea: it can and sooner or later will happen anyway (somewhere) - so it is better to prepare this and do it in a professional way instead of leaving things happen on their own and it is better to be able to choose the translators that can be part of that project (providing a cv and some credentials) than just leaving it to whoever - or am I wrong in that?
ciao, sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/18/2005 5:48:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sabine_cretella@yahoo.it writes:
When talking about contents we can also think about companies that maybe would feature an article paying it ... why not? It is a contribution as well and we can get things done. And why not say: if you want this article to be translated you also have to give something of something that is important to other projects? Example: I have an article translated into English (and really this is not "so much needed") - in addition to that I pay for another article in any of the languages that are "important to develop" - so everyone is happy.
Sure it is a contribution, but what would that do to our credibility. Having companies pay for articles, especially feature articles, raises the question of whether they are simply advertising pieces in the guise of articles, or genuine NPOV coverage. If a company pays us to write or feature an article, does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their POV as well? What about if a political or religious group tries to do the same thing? To what degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage against NPOV.
I am confident that the community will reject this idea.
Danny
Hoi, When an article from the German Wikipedia is translated for money by a professional translator, in what way would this article be of less quality or of a lesser reputation than the orignial article in German? When an article is translated there can be no doubt that the only thing you might want to improve on a translation is some localization where applicable or whatever an editor deems necessary to improve an article. When good articles are translated by good translators the result will be good. Certainly good enough for further work by a community that has proven that it can do just that and certainly better than not having information on a topic.
There have been organisations that threatened to come to Wikipedia in numbers.. This was met with efficient dispatch when they started to praise their wares or sing their message. I do not think payed translations and payed content can be rejected by the community because there is nothing in our charter that says that good information cannot be payed for. It is also very much against the ethical underpinnings of our license. What is there to fear but fear itself ?
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When an article from the German Wikipedia is translated for money by a professional translator, in what way would this article be of less quality or of a lesser reputation than the orignial article in German?
I agree. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And when I translate an article, nobody knows if I'm paid or not.
There have been organisations that threatened to come to Wikipedia in numbers.. This was met with efficient dispatch when they started to praise their wares or sing their message.
I predict that this is a passing phase. There are now many skilled wikipedians who know how to follow NPOV and all policies. Some of these will be short on money and tempted to get hired by public relations firms to place "messages" in Wikipedia.
For example, suppose that I were hired by the Swedish tourist board to promote Sweden as an exotic tourist destination. I would spend time to update and improve articles on places and things Swedish on the Swedish, Danish, English, and German Wikipedias. I could then go on to write interesting background articles on the German Wikipedia about the TV series Inga Lindström. In fact, this activity would be impossible to distinguish from what I now do without pay. (I'm probably an idiot who does this without compensation.)
The bias would be that I only write articles on Sweden and none about Norway or other countries. Nobody can blame me for that.
Traditional encyclopedias (supposedly) have editorial policies to balance the coverage of different topics and countries, but that is missing in Wikipedia (for a good reason: Wikipedia has no size limit that requires such limitations).
I do not think payed translations and payed content can be rejected by the community because there is nothing in our charter that says that good information cannot be payed for.
I agree.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org