Hallo Juergen, On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Juergen Fenn <juergen.fenn(a)gmx.de> wrote: Glad you found it useful, and feedback is always appreciated. And translations continue to be welcome for the new issue as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_April_2012 I absolutely support the goal of making it easier for Wikimedians who cannot read English to inform themselves about important news in the movement. The Foundation is certainly moving in the direction of providing more translations. For example, the last WMF annual report saw professional translations into six languages for the first time (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report#Translations - by the way, if anyone needs printed copies of these for outreach or other purposes, feel free to contact us) and recently we started to experiment with translations of blog postings (https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/multilingual-post/ ). And during the terms of use update process, the WMF legal and community advocacy team has procured professional translations as well. I happen to be subscribed to the German chapter's mailing list and had read the thread you mentioned. I noticed that it didn't really result in an answer to the central, most tricky question of how to designate those "most important languages". (An ad hoc suggestion for six priority languages for the Highlights on the Translators-l list last fall wasn't very well received.) I wasn't aware of such a concrete commitment by the WCA (besides the interim steering committee's announcement that it "will publish its resolutions in Esperanto to aid in translating into other languages." - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Establishmen… ). But perhaps the WMF will indeed be able to learn from the WCA in this respect. Do you happen to know which core languages (besides Esperanto) it is committing to translate to, and could you tell me (perhaps offlist) which translation companies the WCA is contracting? Right now it seems that for the translation of the WCA founding documents, the exact same volunteer-based system on Meta is used to which you objected in case of the Wikimedia Highlights: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AMessageGroupStats&am… Although I agree with your emphasis on making such information accessible, I struggle to understand the logic behind this statement. First, I would not see the Wikimedia Highlights as transporting "the Foundation's message" - e.g. half of the non-data items concern not activities of the Foundation, but of chapters and of the project communities: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_April_2012#Other_move… . (That being said, I sympathize with the argument that if an organization sends out a message whose main purpose it is to advance what it sees as its particular interests in a movement-wide debate, it might consider paying for those translations instead of asking volunteers, and indeed I recall a similar case a few months ago.) Secondly, while I am much encouraged (even flattered) by the fact that you are regarding the Wikimedia Highlights as essential information for community members, and translating them as a vital task, it is not a given that all vital tasks must be left to paid workers. Work like proactively removing copyright violations or processing OTRS emails is also essential for the movement (or more narrowly, the Foundation's operation), yet it is largely done by unpaid volunteers. Third, even accepting that you want to see more donation money directed towards paid translations of the Highlights, I hope that you at least appreciate that the preparation of the Wikimedia Highlights themselves already represents a significant amount of paid work (mostly mine) toward that goal - facilitating translation was a main goal when we introduced the shortened Highlights version, after the full monthly report had seen virtually no translations for over a year despite a conspicuous notice at the top inviting them. Just out of curiousity, could you point me to the research that this statement was based on? It stands in contrast to the recent editor survey among active Wikipedians in 17 languages, where 86 percent said they (sometimes) read the English Wikipedia (https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-… ). Again, this is not to deny the existence of a significant number of Wikipedians who cannot read English at all, or that those who can read English still might prefer to read a translation in their own language, or that providing translations will help our strategic goal of increasing global reach (as Osmar points out). But I think it is important to conduct this debate based on facts rather than hearsay or personal impressions, before spending large amounts of donation money. All that being said, we are certainly open to the idea of spending some money on such translations of the Wikimedia Highlights and have indeed considered that before. It's just that weighing the downsides and advantages is a bit more complicated than you make it appear. In the end, it is important to be aware that the translation work will be powered by voluntary contributions either way - be it volunteer translators donating their time, or volunteer donors contributing their money. -- Tilman Bayer Movement Communications Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB