Hoi, When a second or subsequent project is requested for a langauge, there is a requirement for a full localisation of the User Interface. This does benefit all people who use their language in projects like Commons, Meta.. The full localisation means all MediaWiki messages and all the messages of extensions used in the Wikimedia Foundation.
In the request for the Japanese Wikiversity, there were complaints that it is unreasonable for the people requesting a new project to have to do this work. It is indeed not fair. It is for this reason that I ask all Wikimedia editors to help out with the missing localisations. There are few moments when we can make requirements and thereby ensure the quality of the localisation. This helps our readers, our editors in doing what we all want them to do; read and create good free content.
Thanks, GerardM
* BetaWiki http://translatewiki.net * Statistics of the localisation per languagehttp://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Hello there,
On Jan 13, 2008 7:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When a second or subsequent project is requested for a langauge, there is a requirement for a full localisation of the User Interface. This does benefit all people who use their language in projects like Commons, Meta.. The full localisation means all MediaWiki messages and all the messages of extensions used in the Wikimedia Foundation.
In the request for the Japanese Wikiversity, there were complaints that it is unreasonable for the people requesting a new project to have to do this work. It is indeed not fair.
Sorry, I disagree. For the record, I was the person who commented about this point, but you missed my second argument. Other language without full localization has its own Wikiversity. And at least one of them, Spanish, has less number of localized MediaWiki messages according to the stats on Betawiki. Regardless if your first point is valid, unequal treatment per se is unfair in my opinion.
It is for this reason that I ask all Wikimedia editors to help out with the missing localisations. There are few moments when we can make requirements and thereby ensure the quality of the localisation. This helps our readers, our editors in doing what we all want them to do; read and create good free content.
Also, since they are the second (or third or ... whatever) project, why not ask the existing community to localize, not put the task on newly coming people whose population is ordinary smaller the sum of existing ones?
Thanks, GerardM
- BetaWiki http://translatewiki.net
- Statistics of the localisation per
languagehttp://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the localisation. I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full localisation for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms that the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language will be a success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality content and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the many projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and the project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we got the complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation. The person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language ... what I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously maintained. In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill this requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak, Upper Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 13, 2008 2:04 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Hello there,
On Jan 13, 2008 7:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When a second or subsequent project is requested for a langauge, there
is a
requirement for a full localisation of the User Interface. This does
benefit
all people who use their language in projects like Commons, Meta.. The
full
localisation means all MediaWiki messages and all the messages of
extensions
used in the Wikimedia Foundation.
In the request for the Japanese Wikiversity, there were complaints that
it
is unreasonable for the people requesting a new project to have to do
this
work. It is indeed not fair.
Sorry, I disagree. For the record, I was the person who commented about this point, but you missed my second argument. Other language without full localization has its own Wikiversity. And at least one of them, Spanish, has less number of localized MediaWiki messages according to the stats on Betawiki. Regardless if your first point is valid, unequal treatment per se is unfair in my opinion.
It is for this reason that I ask all Wikimedia editors to help out with the missing localisations. There are few
moments
when we can make requirements and thereby ensure the quality of the localisation. This helps our readers, our editors in doing what we all
want
them to do; read and create good free content.
Also, since they are the second (or third or ... whatever) project, why not ask the existing community to localize, not put the task on newly coming people whose population is ordinary smaller the sum of existing ones?
Thanks, GerardM
- BetaWiki http://translatewiki.net
- Statistics of the localisation per
languagehttp://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the localisation. I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full localisation for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms that the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language will be a success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality content and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the many projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and the project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we got the complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation. The person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language ... what I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously maintained. In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill this requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak, Upper Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
Well, it just appears that the Japanese or the Spanish Wikipedia have managed to become a successful project without a complete localisation. Very surprising, indeed!
Cruccone
Hoi, It is not surprising .. It is what we hope for. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 13, 2008 5:51 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the
localisation.
I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their
language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full
localisation
for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms
that
the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language will be
a
success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality
content
and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the many projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and the project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we got
the
complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation. The person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language ...
what
I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously
maintained.
In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill this requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak,
Upper
Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
Well, it just appears that the Japanese or the Spanish Wikipedia have managed to become a successful project without a complete localisation. Very surprising, indeed!
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
From meta
The Greek nor the Spanish would get their final approval any more. GerardM 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC) :Thanks for your clarification. So Japanese Wikiversity can launch their own wiki as well as Greek Wikiversity already does so? --Aphaia 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ::Sorry, no. GerardM 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) :::Then it seems still unfair. And I think it is your accountability to provide why you treat Japanese project and Greek project differently. --Aphaia 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As an individual editor and as well an editor who joined the discussion about this particular project, I think it is a fair request for ask Langcom for the reason of this partiality.
Why Asian projects are refused what European projects has given?
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is not surprising .. It is what we hope for. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 13, 2008 5:51 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the
localisation.
I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their
language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full
localisation
for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms
that
the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language will be
a
success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality
content
and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the many projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and the project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we got
the
complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation. The person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language ...
what
I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously
maintained.
In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill this requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak,
Upper
Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
Well, it just appears that the Japanese or the Spanish Wikipedia have managed to become a successful project without a complete localisation. Very surprising, indeed!
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, With better tooling a better understanding comes. This happened and from that moment we have been expressing the need for a full localisation of MediaWiki and the localisation of the extensions usedd by the Wikimedia Foundation. When we approve a project it takes something like two weeks from the moment this process starts until we can announce that this is the case. It would be unconscionable to deny at this stage.
I have been busy looking at projects in the last couple of days and I pointed out what we expect of the proposed Japanese Wikiversity. If anything I would expect the Japanese community to finish off this needed work even without there being a requirement for this new project.
As to preferring European projects over Asian projects :) I do not think so. It is rather the reverse for me personally, I would sooner apply positive discrimination against the first world then against the others. Then again, from an economic point of view, Japan is part of the first world.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 13, 2008 7:37 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
From meta
The Greek nor the Spanish would get their final approval any more. GerardM 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC) :Thanks for your clarification. So Japanese Wikiversity can launch their own wiki as well as Greek Wikiversity already does so? --Aphaia 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ::Sorry, no. GerardM 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) :::Then it seems still unfair. And I think it is your accountability to provide why you treat Japanese project and Greek project differently. --Aphaia 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As an individual editor and as well an editor who joined the discussion about this particular project, I think it is a fair request for ask Langcom for the reason of this partiality.
Why Asian projects are refused what European projects has given?
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is not surprising .. It is what we hope for. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 13, 2008 5:51 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the
localisation.
I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their
language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full
localisation
for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms
that
the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language
will be
a
success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality
content
and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the
many
projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and
the
project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the
effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we
got
the
complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation.
The
person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language
...
what
I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously
maintained.
In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill
this
requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak,
Upper
Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
Well, it just appears that the Japanese or the Spanish Wikipedia have managed to become a successful project without a complete
localisation.
Very surprising, indeed!
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
All requests are treated in the exact same way, with no discrimination or exception. The Spanish project was created before the language subcommittee existed, so it was obviously not subjected to the same rules.
This is also why the Japanese wikis now exist without localization, but they would need to do it anyway! Were their wiki created now, they would have a partially English interface and need to translate it locally; then the next wiki would need to do it again. Translating the localization files saves work and time later, and allows Japanese editors to use a Japanese interface on any wiki.
Marco brings up one wiki that flourished without meeting these requirements (it predates them), but I can give a very large number of examples of projects that *didn't* flourish. Some interesting pages to see are < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
and < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis >. So far as I
know, no new wiki since the subcommittee was formed has become inactive yet.
On Jan 15, 2008 4:10 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
All requests are treated in the exact same way, with no discrimination or exception. The Spanish project was created before the language subcommittee existed, so it was obviously not subjected to the same rules.
I understand about Spanish Wikiverisity. But you didn't give the explanation why you set up Greek Wikiversity whose localization was less processed (and still now) than Japanese Wikiversity. So I think my argument on inequity is still valid.
For this issue, I would rather like Language Community to response, not its committee member who are however speaking on an individual basis.
This is also why the Japanese wikis now exist without localization, but they would need to do it anyway! Were their wiki created now, they would have a partially English interface and need to translate it locally; then the next wiki would need to do it again. Translating the localization files saves work and time later, and allows Japanese editors to use a Japanese interface on any wiki.
That was exactly what I/we did on several Japanese wikis: for me Japanese Wikiquote and later Japanese Wikinews.
Marco brings up one wiki that flourished without meeting these requirements (it predates them), but I can give a very large number of examples of projects that *didn't* flourish.
As such a person I would give you two examples of inactive wikis with full localization at a certain moment which anyway didn't help them per se. I don't oppose the possibility there are any relevancy between project activity and localization but strongly doubt there is any consequence. Through my experience, if a project become active or not is rather a user population issue (i.e. they get a community or not) and not localization issue.
Cheers,
Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese, and it seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a few days ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them up for subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them, because it didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much difference). I'll keep you updated off-list.
Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page) those numbers are only there to give a general idea of the discussion. Since they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of the time.
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by going back on this necessary part of the policy.
Again, there are two parts to the policy. * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used messages of MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. * When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF are required.
Localisation is a continuous process and it is for this reason that continuous care needs to be taken. When for instance new functionality like Single User Login (SingleAuthhttp://translatewiki.net/wiki/User:GerardM/ExtensionStats) goes life, it is important that people understand what is happening. It has already been fully localised for 22 languages. MediaWiki is developing continuously and as a consequence there is a need to keep the localisation up to date.
It is exactly for languages that use a different script that it is vital that the localisation is done completely. For these languages there is no chance that the English word is the same or similar.
MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our information. It needs as much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki receives a lot of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our appreciation by making sure that their software is properly understood and appreciated by all its users not only for the people that know English and get everything by default.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese, and it seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a few days ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them up for subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them, because it didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much difference). I'll keep you updated off-list.
Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page) those numbers are only there to give a general idea of the discussion. Since they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of the time.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 15, 2008 7:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by going back on this necessary part of the policy.
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used messages
of MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF are required.
Gerard, you acknowledged before that this is unfair - I agree, and, to me, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Why not allow second and subsequent projects open with the same requirements as the first and, as you said, encourage pan-project language communities to develop the localisation process as an ongoing project?
Cormac
Hoi, Hoi what is unfair is that previous project proposals had less stringent rules then the current and future project proposals. In my reply to Aphaia I said as much. What I also said was that it is not unreasonable.
I do encourage pan-project development of the localisation process. At the time when a language community asks for a new project the quality of the localisation will be assessed. It is exactly because we expect an ongoing localisation effort that this requirement should not be an issue. The problem that we face is that the localisation for most languages is often severely deficient. The relevance of this is something that is not appreciated by the users of an English user interface because they get their localisation by default. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 9:32 AM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by going back on this necessary part of the policy.
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used messages
of MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF are required.
Gerard, you acknowledged before that this is unfair - I agree, and, to me, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Why not allow second and subsequent projects open with the same requirements as the first and, as you said, encourage pan-project language communities to develop the localisation process as an ongoing project?
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM,
One out of twelve members (yourself) is not "several members", and the only other member who commented politely provided their arguments in favour of the additional localization without seeming "extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show" or even suggesting that we immediately restore your changes (as you just did).
You proposed your changes a few days ago without elaborating on their significant difference from the current requirements, got a single ambivalent support, and implemented them just 24 hours after your proposal. I restored the previous version and politely requested on langcom-l that we discuss it further before implementing, and provided my arguments against it and a proposed compromise; instead of simply arguing in favour of your version, you publicly accused me of making a "sorry show", and privately of damaging the subcommittee, not grasping the importance of localization, and dumbing down MediaWiki.
Whatever you may think of my opinions—or me of yours—, personal attacks on private and public mailing lists are not the way to solve disagreements. Referring to me in the third person, as if I were excluded from the discussion, is not particularly constructive either.
Hoi, You are wrong. One other member has expressed has already announced that he will be against any final approval for any project that does not comply. The new policy has been communicated on many projects for more than a week now. When you want to discuss things again., you do not do that by reverting a polcy. We discuss it and when we have consensus the policy can be changed. You do not revert a policy because of you only now find out that you had not "considered things enough". Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 9:56 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM,
One out of twelve members (yourself) is not "several members", and the only other member who commented politely provided their arguments in favour of the additional localization without seeming "extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show" or even suggesting that we immediately restore your changes (as you just did).
You proposed your changes a few days ago without elaborating on their significant difference from the current requirements, got a single ambivalent support, and implemented them just 24 hours after your proposal. I restored the previous version and politely requested on langcom-l that we discuss it further before implementing, and provided my arguments against it and a proposed compromise; instead of simply arguing in favour of your version, you publicly accused me of making a "sorry show", and privately of damaging the subcommittee, not grasping the importance of localization, and dumbing down MediaWiki.
Whatever you may think of my opinions—or me of yours—, personal attacks on private and public mailing lists are not the way to solve disagreements. Referring to me in the third person, as if I were excluded from the discussion, is not particularly constructive either.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by going back on this necessary part of the policy.
Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding, I think it wise not to comment to this part of your statement.
And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as whom you are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on his individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom.
Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus?
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used messages of
MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF are required.
[snip]
It is exactly for languages that use a different script that it is vital that the localisation is done completely. For these languages there is no chance that the English word is the same or similar.
Your argument here again become pointless. "A different script" is unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if I assume you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki default = latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not latin) and Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is not English word.
Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your favor to Greek project.
MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our information. It needs as much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki receives a lot of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our appreciation by making sure that their software is properly understood and appreciated by all its users not only for the people that know English and get everything by default.
Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild pointed out flows in your wording?
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese, and it seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a few days ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them up for subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them, because it didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much difference). I'll keep you updated off-list.
Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page) those numbers are only there to give a general idea of the discussion. Since they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of the time.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
Marco brings up one wiki that flourished without meeting these requirements (it predates them), but I can give a very large number of examples of projects that *didn't* flourish. Some interesting pages to see are < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
and < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis >. So far as I
know, no new wiki since the subcommittee was formed has become inactive yet.
Just to make it sure, the numbers in the table are obsolete, right? For instance, I see that in the table the closure of Lak Wikipedia stands as 7 to 1, whereas in reality it is 7 to 10 (the other 9 votes were cast after some revival of the project).
Cheers, Yaroslav
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is not surprising .. It is what we hope for. Thanks, GerardM
Sorry your answer doesn't answer what Marco pointed out I am afraid. You argued the project needs the full localization or to some extent and he brought the opposite examples. So your preposition is challenged. "It is what we hope for." is no logical counterpart in this line.
And still you give no good reason why you treat Japanese and Spanish differently and apply them double-standards: To Spanish, a lighter one, and to Japanese, a severer one.
On Jan 13, 2008 5:51 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I agree that it is unfair. I am asking others to help with the
localisation.
I do ask the Spanish Wikimedians to do the localisation for their
language.
Where I disagree is that it is unreasonable to require the full
localisation
for any subsequent project to start. It is one of the few mechanisms
that
the language committee has to ensure that projects in a language will be
a
success. We require localisation and we require sufficient quality
content
and sufficient activity so that we can prevent the failure of the many projects we have seen in the past. When the localisation is done and the project fails anyway there is at least something to show for the effort.
For another second project, one with little or no localisation, we got
the
complaint that there may be no people that CAN do the localisation. The person indicated that he is only a level-1 speaker of the language ...
what
I ask myself is what the quality of the existing project is.
In a perfect world the localisation of MediaWiki is continuously
maintained.
In this way a new project does not have to put effort to fulfill this requirement. Some languages like Arab, Farsi, Dutch, Croat, Slovak,
Upper
Sorbian to name only a few it is a perfect world. Thanks, GerardM
Well, it just appears that the Japanese or the Spanish Wikipedia have managed to become a successful project without a complete localisation. Very surprising, indeed!
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org