Hi. The model that Wikisource follows here is similar to Wikiversity:
Just as at Wikiversity, the Wikisource "incubator" is within Wikisource itself. We consider this to be a much more supportive (and better monitored) environment for new languages (rather than the generic incubator.wikimedia.org) for a number of reasons. When such languages are ready, they can then recieve their own subdomains. Until then, they always have a proper place to build their content.
In fact, my personal suggestion is that new test languages for all existing Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.) should be hosted by those projects themselves, rather than at a generic incubator. The Wikiversity/Wikisource model works very nicely indeed, providing a closer sense of a project-wide environment for new test-languages, with a common logo and framework for parallel new languages in the project, while the generic incubator is rather cold and unfriendly (take a look at its main page). There is no way that a single separate wiki for all new languages in all projects at once can provide proper guidance, supervision, and monitoring. Perhaps the incubator would be better left for testing entirely new Wikimedia projects.
As for the Wikisource portal, because it is at wikisource.org rather than on Meta, you will find that it is much better supported than the portals for other Wikimedia projects, which are often out-of-date ("out-of-site" >> "out-of-mind"), and often have aesthetic or other problems that take longer to fix. People go to Wikisource and make direct suggestions for Portal updates right there at the talk page, and Wikisource admins take care of things immediately because they are always around at the wiki. Here too, this may be a better model than the convention for other projects.
Dovi Jacobs
--------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
Hoi, Everybody assumes that Wikipedia is to be the first project to introduce a new language. This is however not a given. When a new language is introduced for Wikisource, the requirements for a new language still apply. Particularly the language is to be approved to conform to what is considered to be that language.
Consequently, when a new language is to be started first in Wikisource, the requirements are not waived. What can be discussed is to host it in Wikisource... However it would NOT be an approved language nor an approved project until it meets the requirements as specified by the language committee. This is not something that can be voted on.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/5/07, Dovi Jacobs dovijacobs@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi. The model that Wikisource follows here is similar to Wikiversity:
Just as at Wikiversity, the Wikisource "incubator" is within Wikisource itself. We consider this to be a much more supportive (and better monitored) environment for new languages (rather than the generic incubator.wikimedia.org) for a number of reasons. When such languages are ready, they can then recieve their own subdomains. Until then, they always have a proper place to build their content.
In fact, my personal suggestion is that new test languages for all existing Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.) should be hosted by those projects themselves, rather than at a generic incubator. The Wikiversity/Wikisource model works very nicely indeed, providing a closer sense of a project-wide environment for new test-languages, with a common logo and framework for parallel new languages in the project, while the generic incubator is rather cold and unfriendly (take a look at its main page). There is no way that a single separate wiki for all new languages in all projects at once can provide proper guidance, supervision, and monitoring. Perhaps the incubator would be better left for testing entirely new Wikimedia projects.
As for the Wikisource portal, because it is at wikisource.org rather than on Meta, you will find that it is much better supported than the portals for other Wikimedia projects, which are often out-of-date ("out-of-site" >> "out-of-mind"), and often have aesthetic or other problems that take longer to fix. People go to Wikisource and make direct suggestions for Portal updates right there at the talk page, and Wikisource admins take care of things immediately because they are always around at the wiki. Here too, this may be a better model than the convention for other projects.
Dovi Jacobs
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, Everybody assumes that Wikipedia is to be the first project to introduce a new language. This is however not a given. When a new language is introduced for Wikisource, the requirements for a new language still apply. Particularly the language is to be approved to conform to what is considered to be that language.
Consequently, when a new language is to be started first in Wikisource, the requirements are not waived. What can be discussed is to host it in Wikisource... However it would NOT be an approved language nor an approved project until it meets the requirements as specified by the language committee. This is not something that can be voted on.
Thanks, GerardM
I think it is better that the process for the creation of a new language for Wikisource happens in Wikisource itself as Dovi and Ray said.
Here it looks like that you are afraid to lose some control...
Regards,
Yann
Yann Forget schrieb:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, Everybody assumes that Wikipedia is to be the first project to introduce a new language. This is however not a given. When a new language is introduced for Wikisource, the requirements for a new language still apply. Particularly the language is to be approved to conform to what is considered to be that language.
Consequently, when a new language is to be started first in Wikisource, the requirements are not waived. What can be discussed is to host it in Wikisource... However it would NOT be an approved language nor an approved project until it meets the requirements as specified by the language committee. This is not something that can be voted on.
Thanks, GerardM
I think it is better that the process for the creation of a new language for Wikisource happens in Wikisource itself as Dovi and Ray said.
Here it looks like that you are afraid to lose some control...
Regards,
Yann
Hi Yann,
I suppose that there is something that is not understood well: normally a new language is started with Wikipedia and therefore what comes later is quite easy to achieve since the UI is already there etc.
When a new language is introduced by a different project, let's say Wiktionary, Wikisource or whatever project the same rules as for a new Wikipedia (in a new language) apply, because it starts a "new language".
We are not controlling anything - we are just making sure that projects have the best possible start.
Best wishes from Italy,
Sabine
Hello,
Sabine Cretella a écrit :
Hi Yann,
I suppose that there is something that is not understood well: normally a new language is started with Wikipedia and therefore what comes later is quite easy to achieve since the UI is already there etc.
When a new language is introduced by a different project, let's say Wiktionary, Wikisource or whatever project the same rules as for a new Wikipedia (in a new language) apply, because it starts a "new language".
We are not controlling anything - we are just making sure that projects have the best possible start.
There is something special in Wikisource, at least for some languages, is that there is no need to have a lot of content nor many contributors to have something useful. This is specially true for dead languages.
I think Wikipedia or Wikibooks in a dead language are not useful, although it could be fun. Wiktionary could be useful, but you need at least some basic vocabulary to be useful. But for Wikisource, even only a single old work could be very interesting and useful. For some languages, there will never enough content nor contributors to create a separate subdomain, but still we need a place to host these works. IMO, this is the "raison d'être" of the multilingual Wikisource.
So I think that, at least for these dead languages, the whole procedure of a new language through the Incubator is out of place.
And actually I think that this procedure is also quite good for living languages, at least for Wikisource. The rules are easy and the same for every language: public domain and already "published", be it on paper, hard stone or papyrus...
Best wishes from Italy,
Sabine
Best regards,
Yann
Hoi, When Wikisource is having content in languages that did not pass the process for recognition for a new language for MediaWiki and for a Wikimedia Foundation project, and when this content is restricted to http://wikisource.org, there seems to be at first glance not much that the language committee has to deal with. The problem however is that a code that is used for such a language has to exist. There is also a need that the meta data uses the right code. This allows for the information to be recognised for the language that it is.
Also when a request is made for a language in Wikisource, it is can not be separated from the status that a language has in the wider Wikimedia world. An example are the two Belarusian languages that do not find it possible to collaborate. The only reason why there are two wikipedias is because the be-x-old data existed before the new policies came into effect. This would not have been accepted as a separate project on its own merits.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
Sabine Cretella a écrit :
Hi Yann,
I suppose that there is something that is not understood well: normally a new language is started with Wikipedia and therefore what comes later is quite easy to achieve since the UI is already there etc.
When a new language is introduced by a different project, let's say Wiktionary, Wikisource or whatever project the same rules as for a new Wikipedia (in a new language) apply, because it starts a "new language".
We are not controlling anything - we are just making sure that projects have the best possible start.
There is something special in Wikisource, at least for some languages, is that there is no need to have a lot of content nor many contributors to have something useful. This is specially true for dead languages.
I think Wikipedia or Wikibooks in a dead language are not useful, although it could be fun. Wiktionary could be useful, but you need at least some basic vocabulary to be useful. But for Wikisource, even only a single old work could be very interesting and useful. For some languages, there will never enough content nor contributors to create a separate subdomain, but still we need a place to host these works. IMO, this is the "raison d'être" of the multilingual Wikisource.
So I think that, at least for these dead languages, the whole procedure of a new language through the Incubator is out of place.
And actually I think that this procedure is also quite good for living languages, at least for Wikisource. The rules are easy and the same for every language: public domain and already "published", be it on paper, hard stone or papyrus...
Best wishes from Italy,
Sabine
Best regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, When Wikisource is having content in languages that did not pass the process for recognition for a new language for MediaWiki and for a Wikimedia Foundation project, and when this content is restricted to http://wikisource.org, there seems to be at first glance not much that the language committee has to deal with. The problem however is that a code that is used for such a language has to exist. There is also a need that the meta data uses the right code. This allows for the information to be recognised for the language that it is.
Having the right code for an otherwise accepted language is a problem on a completely different level from having a project in the language.
Also when a request is made for a language in Wikisource, it is can not be separated from the status that a language has in the wider Wikimedia world. An example are the two Belarusian languages that do not find it possible to collaborate. The only reason why there are two wikipedias is because the be-x-old data existed before the new policies came into effect. This would not have been accepted as a separate project on its own merits.
Perhaps Wikisource would find a way to accomodate both language forms in the same project. The original Belorussian texts were written as they were written. Texts in the new form are not likely to go into the public domain very soon.
Ec
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language" that the language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in wikisource.org that is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, When Wikisource is having content in languages that did not pass the
process
for recognition for a new language for MediaWiki and for a Wikimedia Foundation project, and when this content is restricted to http://wikisource.org, there seems to be at first glance not much that
the
language committee has to deal with. The problem however is that a code
that
is used for such a language has to exist. There is also a need that the
meta
data uses the right code. This allows for the information to be
recognised
for the language that it is.
Having the right code for an otherwise accepted language is a problem on a completely different level from having a project in the language.
Also when a request is made for a language in Wikisource, it is can not
be
separated from the status that a language has in the wider Wikimedia
world.
An example are the two Belarusian languages that do not find it possible
to
collaborate. The only reason why there are two wikipedias is because the be-x-old data existed before the new policies came into effect. This
would
not have been accepted as a separate project on its own merits.
Perhaps Wikisource would find a way to accomodate both language forms in the same project. The original Belorussian texts were written as they were written. Texts in the new form are not likely to go into the public domain very soon.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language" that the language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in wikisource.org that is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this? http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%... or this? http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
Regards,
Yann
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the language is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English means that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages within the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked in any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language" that
the
language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in wikisource.orgthat is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%... or this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/06/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the language is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English means that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages within the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked in any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Well, meta seems to manage well enough :-)
Seriously, though, there are projects where a hubbub of multilinguality is pretty much inevitable - Commons being the obvious example, even if we just write meta off as internal craziness. Would it not be simplest to contrive some way of allowing the page content to dictate the metadata published by mediawiki, rather than declaring we just can't do it, period? A much more robust long-term solution.
After all, even if we import the entire known corpus, I can't see ecr.wikisource.org ever consisting of more than a few kilobytes of text...
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the language is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English means that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages within the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked in any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Ok, I see what you mean, what you exaggerate greatly the importance of that, especially because Google doesn't know any Indian language, nor any dead language. It doesn't do any difference between old Greek and modern Greek, doesn't know Belarussian nor Kazakh (close to Russian), doesn't know Urdu not Kurdi, etc.
The only really useful cases are when the same word exists in different languages. Most of these cases are for languages separate in subdomains. For the other possibilities, there is little risk to confuse Sanskrit and Armenian, for example.
For the rest, searching for example for ईशावास्य उपनिषद् works fairly well, it even gives Wikisource as the first answer. ;o)
Regards,
Yann
PS: As JHS, told me, need to add — lang="sa" xml:lang="sa" — to each page. That could easily be done with a bot.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language" that
the
language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in wikisource.orgthat is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%... or this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
Regards,
Yann
Hoi, I am well aware of where Google stands on supporting languages. I have discussed this for two years now with one of their language engeneers. You underestimate the importance that the proper language codes should have. You are not aware on the importance that is given to project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is exactly because we aim to do justice and promote language diversity that we invest in Multilingual MediaWiki. And it is with a lot of frustration that for all kinds of reasons, good and bad, it is still not finished.
If Google and Internet is only about being able to find things on the Internet, than only languages with a more or less fixed orthography will be found. Most content of other languages can only be found like a needle in the proverbial haystack. This problem is made worse because of people that mean well but have no clue about the complexity of the problem.
Indicating what language a text is in, is vitaly important. It is particularly important for those language that do not have much of a foot print on the Internet.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the
language
is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English
means
that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages
within
the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked
in
any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Ok, I see what you mean, what you exaggerate greatly the importance of that, especially because Google doesn't know any Indian language, nor any dead language. It doesn't do any difference between old Greek and modern Greek, doesn't know Belarussian nor Kazakh (close to Russian), doesn't know Urdu not Kurdi, etc.
The only really useful cases are when the same word exists in different languages. Most of these cases are for languages separate in subdomains. For the other possibilities, there is little risk to confuse Sanskrit and Armenian, for example.
For the rest, searching for example for ईशावास्य उपनिषद् works fairly well, it even gives Wikisource as the first answer. ;o)
Regards,
Yann
PS: As JHS, told me, need to add — lang="sa" xml:lang="sa" — to each page. That could easily be done with a bot.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language"
that
the
language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in
this
way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in
wikisource.orgthat
is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%...
or this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
Regards,
Yann
-- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, I am well aware of where Google stands on supporting languages. I have discussed this for two years now with one of their language engeneers. You underestimate the importance that the proper language codes should have. You are not aware on the importance that is given to project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is exactly because we aim to do justice and promote language diversity that we invest in Multilingual MediaWiki. And it is with a lot of frustration that for all kinds of reasons, good and bad, it is still not finished.
If Google and Internet is only about being able to find things on the Internet, than only languages with a more or less fixed orthography will be found. Most content of other languages can only be found like a needle in the proverbial haystack. This problem is made worse because of people that mean well but have no clue about the complexity of the problem.
Indicating what language a text is in, is vitaly important. It is particularly important for those language that do not have much of a foot print on the Internet.
It seems to me that the approach you seem to take does not do a good job of supporting your stated intentions.
If you are in favor of using the correct language codes for the content in Wikisource, then support a mechanism that will allow for that to be accomplished, but don't use the lack of such a mechanism as a means of preventing said content from being added.
There are several good reasons for some languages to be gathered into a single wiki (extinct languages, languages with a very limited corpus, etc.). To insist that source texts must reside in their own wiki so that the correct language codes are used is "letting the tail wag the dog," so to speak: it's putting things in the wrong order of priority, it's letting an implementation limitation in MediaWiki determine which source texts we collect. To me, that just seems silly.
-Rich Holton
Hoi, My position is:
- Any language has to be the language it claims to be - I am actively involved in getting MultiLingual MediaWiki developed - I never stated that Wikisource or Commons should not have multilingual content for all the right reasons
NB All languages deserve support. I am fully in favour of Wikisource supporting extinct languages and languages that have little presence on the web. The presence within Wikisource however has to support these languages, something that will be improved on when the content is accurately tagged.
The consequence is that we DO have an interest making sure that languages are indeed languages they proclaim to be and we ARE happy and willing to make sure that there are codes to indicate those linguistic entities that do not have a code yet.
The consequence is that once MLMW has been realised, we expect it to be used particularly by http://Wikisource.org.
The consequence is that there are good reasons why the language committee has an interest in the languages supported in any Wikimedia Foundation projects. This is what this committee is there for.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/7/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, I am well aware of where Google stands on supporting languages. I have discussed this for two years now with one of their language engeneers.
You
underestimate the importance that the proper language codes should have.
You
are not aware on the importance that is given to project of the
Wikimedia
Foundation. It is exactly because we aim to do justice and promote
language
diversity that we invest in Multilingual MediaWiki. And it is with a lot
of
frustration that for all kinds of reasons, good and bad, it is still not finished.
If Google and Internet is only about being able to find things on the Internet, than only languages with a more or less fixed orthography will
be
found. Most content of other languages can only be found like a needle
in
the proverbial haystack. This problem is made worse because of people
that
mean well but have no clue about the complexity of the problem.
Indicating what language a text is in, is vitaly important. It is particularly important for those language that do not have much of a
foot
print on the Internet.
It seems to me that the approach you seem to take does not do a good job of supporting your stated intentions.
If you are in favor of using the correct language codes for the content in Wikisource, then support a mechanism that will allow for that to be accomplished, but don't use the lack of such a mechanism as a means of preventing said content from being added.
There are several good reasons for some languages to be gathered into a single wiki (extinct languages, languages with a very limited corpus, etc.). To insist that source texts must reside in their own wiki so that the correct language codes are used is "letting the tail wag the dog," so to speak: it's putting things in the wrong order of priority, it's letting an implementation limitation in MediaWiki determine which source texts we collect. To me, that just seems silly.
-Rich Holton
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Though the language for the Devanagari script article was not specified, the other example was marked [[Category:Armenian]]. Establishing the proper ISO code used to refer to a language is not the sort of thing that needs to be discussed by a committee. Standards already exist. Any single committee member should be able to provide that information on request, and probably within 24 hours.
In any case I think that the "technical disaster" of having wrongfully coded small corpus languages is less troubling than the real disaster of small databases that retain long term vandalism because nobody ever looks there.
Ec
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the language is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English means that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages within the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked in any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language" that the
language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in wikisource.orgthat is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%... or this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
Hoi, Indicating what language a text is in using templates is utterly useless when other uses then reading with eye balls is concerned.
I do agree that small projects are a problem. However your perception of the problem is a bit narrower than how I see the problem. When you wear all my hats, you really would want to have one database with a potential to indicate per article what language the article is in. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Though the language for the Devanagari script article was not specified, the other example was marked [[Category:Armenian]]. Establishing the proper ISO code used to refer to a language is not the sort of thing that needs to be discussed by a committee. Standards already exist. Any single committee member should be able to provide that information on request, and probably within 24 hours.
In any case I think that the "technical disaster" of having wrongfully coded small corpus languages is less troubling than the real disaster of small databases that retain long term vandalism because nobody ever looks there.
Ec
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, When you look at the details for the HTML it will tell you that the
language
is English. It is obviously not. Technically all content in Wikisource.orgthat is not English should be marked for the language that it is.
Having content marked English while it is in actual fact not English
means
that the meta-data of the page is wrong. Having multiple languages within the same MediaWiki database is technically a disaster. It is not marked
in
any way what language it is. This is in and of itself bad.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/6/07, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
GerardM a écrit :
Hoi, It is exactly to find out if it is an "otherwise accepted language"
that the
language committee wants to make sure that the content is coded in this way.. I would not be surprised when all the content in
wikisource.orgthat
is NOT English is not coded correctly in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
I don't understand what you want to do here. Which code are you talking about?
What can you do about the coding of this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%...
or this?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/%D4%B1%D4%BC%D4%BC%D4%B1%D5%80%D4%BB%D5%91_%D5%82...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If Wikisource's community discussed that issue thoroughly and agreed on the current way, then I guess its okay.
When you visit wikisource.org , you don't know that you can add content there. perhaps a little highlighting of what is going on the wiki is appropriate? also having a multi-lingual main page would be great too (introducing Wikisource with many languages)...
Dovi said that when the portal is on a wiki, it is much faster and easier to update..I agree with that..may be all of the other portals gets converted to mw installations? but comes the question..'the other installations wouldn't have sysops as there are nothing there except the main page, how it would be maintained?' a solution may say, make a sysop there from each language..
I am with incubating other languages on wikisource.org (sub-domain or as it is now) because as said, some languages will keep incubating till the end of time.
About the language approval and that any new sub-domain created should have mw completely localized, may be these unique languages don't have enough vocabulary to translate it? or don't have that contributors willing to create that vocabulary in the said language (yep, original research :P)..
btw I have sent this thread to fndn-l and ws-l but then I noticed that I haven't subscribed there ;)
Hoi, Only dead languages may have not the vocabulary to create a user interface. For those languages it does not matter much anyway if there is a UI in that language. There are no people who rely on a localised UI in order to understand what is on the webpage.
When there is a need to create a user interface for a project and it takes original research to create the appropriate localisation, nobody will complain because it is not Wikipedia or whatever project, it is MediaWiki development. MediaWiki would not have happened withour original research :)
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/8/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikisource's community discussed that issue thoroughly and agreed on the current way, then I guess its okay.
When you visit wikisource.org , you don't know that you can add content there. perhaps a little highlighting of what is going on the wiki is appropriate? also having a multi-lingual main page would be great too (introducing Wikisource with many languages)...
Dovi said that when the portal is on a wiki, it is much faster and easier to update..I agree with that..may be all of the other portals gets converted to mw installations? but comes the question..'the other installations wouldn't have sysops as there are nothing there except the main page, how it would be maintained?' a solution may say, make a sysop there from each language..
I am with incubating other languages on wikisource.org (sub-domain or as it is now) because as said, some languages will keep incubating till the end of time.
About the language approval and that any new sub-domain created should have mw completely localized, may be these unique languages don't have enough vocabulary to translate it? or don't have that contributors willing to create that vocabulary in the said language (yep, original research :P)..
btw I have sent this thread to fndn-l and ws-l but then I noticed that I haven't subscribed there ;)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 08/06/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Only dead languages may have not the vocabulary to create a user interface. For those languages it does not matter much anyway if there is a UI in that language. There are no people who rely on a localised UI in order to understand what is on the webpage.
An interesting thought, this. If we would find it conceptually silly to translate the interface for a language, then perhaps that's the dividing line as to whether or not the texts in that language need to be on a seperate project ;-)
Hoi, I would not call it silly, I would call it an intellectual exercise. It is not necessary to call it silly.
Given that Wikisource is about source texts, I am less worried about the veracity of the content than I would be in a Wikipedia project. There are several projects where the orthography is an exercise in original research as one often not formal orthography is insisted on. This is not restricted to the Belarus Wikipedia by the way. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/8/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/06/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Only dead languages may have not the vocabulary to create a user
interface.
For those languages it does not matter much anyway if there is a UI in
that
language. There are no people who rely on a localised UI in order to understand what is on the webpage.
An interesting thought, this. If we would find it conceptually silly to translate the interface for a language, then perhaps that's the dividing line as to whether or not the texts in that language need to be on a seperate project ;-)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, I would not call it silly, I would call it an intellectual exercise. It is not necessary to call it silly.
Given that Wikisource is about source texts, I am less worried about the veracity of the content than I would be in a Wikipedia project.
Agreed.
There are several projects where the orthography is an exercise in original research as one often not formal orthography is insisted on. This is not restricted to the Belarus Wikipedia by the way.
It is always dangerous to change the orthography from what it is in the original work, but in a lot of cases in the public domain the work has already been done for us. If a Russian work exists only in the pre-revolutionary orthography that should be the standard, but it should not prevent us from adding a modern transcription.
On the other hand one still needs to be careful with English works published before 1800 that used a long "s". Those should be changed, but not at the risk of confusing them with an "f". One needs to be aware of the distinction between orthography and typography.
Ec
Yann Forget wrote:
I think it is better that the process for the creation of a new language for Wikisource happens in Wikisource itself as Dovi and Ray said.
Here it looks like that you are afraid to lose some control...
Regards,
Yann
Wikisource.org accepts texts from all languages that are not included in a subdomain. So it should be possible to build a functioning community for a language there. And if such a community existed, I don't see why a test wiki is needed in the incubator.
Hello,
I agree entirely with Dovi and I could not have said it better.
In addition, it would be quite proper to discuss this with the community there first. There is also a mailing list for Wikisource.
Regards,
Yann
Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
Hi. The model that Wikisource follows here is similar to Wikiversity:
Just as at Wikiversity, the Wikisource "incubator" is within Wikisource itself. We consider this to be a much more supportive (and better monitored) environment for new languages (rather than the generic incubator.wikimedia.org) for a number of reasons. When such languages are ready, they can then recieve their own subdomains. Until then, they always have a proper place to build their content.
In fact, my personal suggestion is that new test languages for all existing Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.) should be hosted by those projects themselves, rather than at a generic incubator. The Wikiversity/Wikisource model works very nicely indeed, providing a closer sense of a project-wide environment for new test-languages, with a common logo and framework for parallel new languages in the project, while the generic incubator is rather cold and unfriendly (take a look at its main page). There is no way that a single separate wiki for all new languages in all projects at once can provide proper guidance, supervision, and monitoring. Perhaps the incubator would be better left for testing entirely new Wikimedia projects.
As for the Wikisource portal, because it is at wikisource.org rather than on Meta, you will find that it is much better supported than the portals for other Wikimedia projects, which are often out-of-date ("out-of-site" >> "out-of-mind"), and often have aesthetic or other problems that take longer to fix. People go to Wikisource and make direct suggestions for Portal updates right there at the talk page, and Wikisource admins take care of things immediately because they are always around at the wiki. Here too, this may be a better model than the convention for other projects.
Dovi Jacobs
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org