Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that mail you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an appropriate manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at that time approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to comply with the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a member of the langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a project. This is often communicated privately with people representing the new project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for Japanese ... without full localisation important messages will not be available and consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot of uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an exension. They are extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any extension messages for a first project in a language because we trust the community to do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are translated in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more important that the localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the new requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When the localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller projects lose out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and the hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have already improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
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)
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
-- 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
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and the hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have already improved quite substantially over the last few months.
As I said before, I have been granted sysopship on two Japanese projects. And generally Japanese are eager to localize messages. I am talking here as an individual, as a normal editor, not Transcom Chair nor former Board Election Comittee Chair but I am strongly convinced all my colleagues both past and present may witness how I put my energy for multilingualism and getting the global community involved into Wikimedia movement through activities in their own langauges. And as a sysop, unless I am very occupied, I've been tried to respond localization requests from the community who granted me the access.
As such I daresay, if there is unlocalized message in Japanese setting, it reflects no one interested in that, no one feels the needs to localize it, no one think it hinders his activities in his own language. And I repeat here Japanese are not so much good in English. The localization get people involved into Wikimedia project? Simply no, I say from my experience. In the past Wikimedia elections since 2004, I was getting involved into boardwiki related messages localization from the beginning, and sure all messages were localized but it can be hardly said to get jawiki people involved into Foundation matters. In my case, it could be a factor but rather the emergence of *not yet localized* Japanese Wikiquote may have affect my involvement greatly, so I don't agree demanding full localization is the absolute requirement for project progression.
Let us summarize: it is no factual argument the reason required localization is a must for a project. Rather I agree with Cormac. There would be better to no difference between first project and later. The community knows what their language community needs in their linguistic circumstance. Far better than you, Gerald.
Hoi, Localisation is best done centrally. Localisation of a project locally should only be done on those messages that are distinctly different from what is valid for other projects. These are messages that have to do with local policies.
When you are of the opinion that the requirements for first projects and subsequent projects should be the same, you are arguing for a substantial increase to the entry level for a project because from my point of view we would demand full localisation of both MediaWiki messages and extensions of the WMF. This is in my opinion not reasonable. I agree with you that localisation should be a continuous process. It is for this reason that only for subsequent projects full localisation is required.
All messages localised in BetaWiki are available in all Wikimedia Foundation projects. Consequently localisation in BetaWiki will improve the experience in Commons or Meta. It is how I know how to navigate on projects that are totally foreign to me like the Japanese projects.
With localisation in BetaWiki the total effort involved in localisation is effectively reduced and the effectiveness improved. Britty, it is sad but true; localising any other project then BetaWiki is effectively a waste of time including the time spend on the localisation of Commons, Meta and other internal projects. With full localisation any new project request will *only * have to change the local policy specific messages.
In conclusion, we are experiencing some pain from the fact that we are transitioning to a new policy. This whole issue of localisation for new projects will go away when we all concentrate our localisation work at BetaWiki. We will in the end spend less time and be more productive.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 12:02 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
As I said before, I have been granted sysopship on two Japanese projects. And generally Japanese are eager to localize messages. I am talking here as an individual, as a normal editor, not Transcom Chair nor former Board Election Comittee Chair but I am strongly convinced all my colleagues both past and present may witness how I put my energy for multilingualism and getting the global community involved into Wikimedia movement through activities in their own langauges. And as a sysop, unless I am very occupied, I've been tried to respond localization requests from the community who granted me the access.
As such I daresay, if there is unlocalized message in Japanese setting, it reflects no one interested in that, no one feels the needs to localize it, no one think it hinders his activities in his own language. And I repeat here Japanese are not so much good in English. The localization get people involved into Wikimedia project? Simply no, I say from my experience. In the past Wikimedia elections since 2004, I was getting involved into boardwiki related messages localization from the beginning, and sure all messages were localized but it can be hardly said to get jawiki people involved into Foundation matters. In my case, it could be a factor but rather the emergence of *not yet localized* Japanese Wikiquote may have affect my involvement greatly, so I don't agree demanding full localization is the absolute requirement for project progression.
Let us summarize: it is no factual argument the reason required localization is a must for a project. Rather I agree with Cormac. There would be better to no difference between first project and later. The community knows what their language community needs in their linguistic circumstance. Far better than you, Gerald.
-- 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
On Jan 15, 2008 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Localisation is best done centrally. Localisation of a project locally should only be done on those messages that are distinctly different from what is valid for other projects. These are messages that have to do with local policies.
When you are of the opinion that the requirements for first projects and subsequent projects should be the same, you are arguing for a substantial increase to the entry level for a project because from my point of view we would demand full localisation of both MediaWiki messages and extensions of the WMF. This is in my opinion not reasonable. I agree with you that localisation should be a continuous process. It is for this reason that only for subsequent projects full localisation is required.
When I asked that first and subsequent projects be treated the same (with respect to localisation), I meant that projects would be allowed to begin with *the same* localisation requirements as has been done in the past (particularly, as Aphaia points out, projects without full localisation seem to work). Or perhaps this should be 'more or less the same' requirements - there might be some new messages that would be good for new projects to have. I say this because it does not seem reasonable to ask new projects to fully localise all MediaWiki messages on top of their other work in getting a project started. Proposing a new project can be a confusing enough process, requiring people to navigate multiple wikis and jump through various hoops - this only adds to that confusion and stress. What I propose, therefore, is that localisation become a continuous project undertaken by pan-project language communities or 'taskforces'. This seems to be what you are saying when you say localisation should be done centrally (ie on BetaWiki) - so why place the extra burden on new projects?
Cormac
Hoi, The reason why we insist on full localisation for subsequent projects is that it is the only way in which we can force the localisation to be good enough at one time. When we give the final approval and the requirement is only met at that time and there is no continuous localisation it is just good enough and because of the continuous development it will not take that long and it will be not that great anymore. I agree with you that there should be a continuous community effort and when this is the case, the requirement for full localisation at the time of the assessment of final approval is not a problem at all.
So in answer to your question, the reason why we insist on it is because the localisation for many languages needs serious improvement. We do this because it forces the issue on the agenda of the respective language communities. We do this because the need for proper localisation is there. We do this because we feel it is appropriate because it is a major contributing factor in attracting a reading and editing public for MediaWiki and for MediaWiki projects. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 16, 2008 2:39 PM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Localisation is best done centrally. Localisation of a project locally should only be done on those messages that are distinctly different from what is valid for other projects. These are messages that have to do
with
local policies.
When you are of the opinion that the requirements for first projects and subsequent projects should be the same, you are arguing for a
substantial
increase to the entry level for a project because from my point of view
we
would demand full localisation of both MediaWiki messages and extensions of the WMF. This is in my opinion not reasonable. I agree with you that localisation should be a continuous process. It is for this reason that only for subsequent projects full localisation is required.
When I asked that first and subsequent projects be treated the same (with respect to localisation), I meant that projects would be allowed to begin with *the same* localisation requirements as has been done in the past (particularly, as Aphaia points out, projects without full localisation seem to work). Or perhaps this should be 'more or less the same' requirements - there might be some new messages that would be good for new projects to have. I say this because it does not seem reasonable to ask new projects to fully localise all MediaWiki messages on top of their other work in getting a project started. Proposing a new project can be a confusing enough process, requiring people to navigate multiple wikis and jump through various hoops - this only adds to that confusion and stress. What I propose, therefore, is that localisation become a continuous project undertaken by pan-project language communities or 'taskforces'. This seems to be what you are saying when you say localisation should be done centrally (ie on BetaWiki) - so why place the extra burden on new projects?
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 17, 2008 4:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The reason why we insist on full localisation for subsequent projects is that it is the only way in which we can force the localisation to be good enough at one time.
Who are this "we"? Stichting Open Progress? I bluntly say: you seem to be in conflict of interest and combine Langcom whose primary mission is to determine a certain requested project is ready to be launched with another concern it is not necessarily required. Whether it brings good or not, as I pointed out, it is not relevant and unhealthy.
When we give the final approval and the requirement is only met at that time and there is no continuous localisation it is just good enough and because of the continuous development it will not take that long and it will be not that great anymore. I agree with you that there should be a continuous community effort and when this is the case, the requirement for full localisation at the time of the assessment of final approval is not a problem at all.
So in answer to your question, the reason why we insist on it is because the localisation for many languages needs serious improvement. We do this because it forces the issue on the agenda of the respective language communities. We do this because the need for proper localisation is there. We do this because we feel it is appropriate because it is a major contributing factor in attracting a reading and editing public for MediaWiki and for MediaWiki projects. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 16, 2008 2:39 PM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Localisation is best done centrally. Localisation of a project locally should only be done on those messages that are distinctly different from what is valid for other projects. These are messages that have to do
with
local policies.
When you are of the opinion that the requirements for first projects and subsequent projects should be the same, you are arguing for a
substantial
increase to the entry level for a project because from my point of view
we
would demand full localisation of both MediaWiki messages and extensions of the WMF. This is in my opinion not reasonable. I agree with you that localisation should be a continuous process. It is for this reason that only for subsequent projects full localisation is required.
When I asked that first and subsequent projects be treated the same (with respect to localisation), I meant that projects would be allowed to begin with *the same* localisation requirements as has been done in the past (particularly, as Aphaia points out, projects without full localisation seem to work). Or perhaps this should be 'more or less the same' requirements - there might be some new messages that would be good for new projects to have. I say this because it does not seem reasonable to ask new projects to fully localise all MediaWiki messages on top of their other work in getting a project started. Proposing a new project can be a confusing enough process, requiring people to navigate multiple wikis and jump through various hoops - this only adds to that confusion and stress. What I propose, therefore, is that localisation become a continuous project undertaken by pan-project language communities or 'taskforces'. This seems to be what you are saying when you say localisation should be done centrally (ie on BetaWiki) - so why place the extra burden on new projects?
Cormac _______________________________________________ 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,
GerardM and I had a long phone conference about localization requirements, and we've reached a consensus.
Cormac raises a valid concern about the difficulty of localization alongside all the other tasks of opening a new wiki, but the new requirements actually mean less work is needed for the first project. The previous requirements called for the translation of around 1400 messages for the first wiki, and around 200 messages for the second wiki. The new requirements only call for the translation of 500 messages for the first wiki, and 1700 before the second wiki is approved (by which time many messages have usually been translated over time by the first wiki's community).
Even though the new requirements include all extension used by Wikimedia wikis, this is redistributed so that the difficulty of opening the first wiki is reduced, and localization can be done slowly over time until the second project instead of in a huge one-time batch.
On Jan 16, 2008 4:25 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Cormac raises a valid concern about the difficulty of localization alongside all the other tasks of opening a new wiki, but the new requirements actually mean less work is needed for the first project. The previous requirements called for the translation of around 1400 messages for the first wiki, and around 200 messages for the second wiki. The new requirements only call for the translation of 500 messages for the first wiki, and 1700 before the second wiki is approved (by which time many messages have usually been translated over time by the first wiki's community).
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
If this project cannot accomplish enough translation to create a differentiated project within a certain period of time (say, 500 messages per year or something), it gets shut down and shipped back to the global incubator. By doing this, we don't create projects for which there is no support, we don't create projects without proper localization, we are able to monitor the progress of localization efforts, and we don't put unnecessary restrictions on what kinds of materials the speakers of a language can generate.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 16/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
Indeed. Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikisource were created because the English Wikipedia community at the time decided those things didn't go in "an encyclopedia." Another community may well decide otherwise.
- d.
On Jan 16, 2008 6:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
Indeed. Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikisource were created because the English Wikipedia community at the time decided those things didn't go in "an encyclopedia." Another community may well decide otherwise.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a community that wants to write a dictionary, and then decides that the articles that are springing up are not "dictionaryish" enough for wiktionary. We shouldn't make the assumption that every new language wants to start with a wikipedia, or that the members of one language will be all interested in doing the same thing at first.
--Andrew Whitworth
Hoi, We have at this moment a language request and its first project is a Wiktionary. There are exceptions to the rule :) Thanks, GerardM
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Pitjant...
On Jan 17, 2008 12:06 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 6:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
Indeed. Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikisource were created because the English Wikipedia community at the time decided those things didn't go in "an encyclopedia." Another community may well decide otherwise.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a community that wants to write a dictionary, and then decides that the articles that are springing up are not "dictionaryish" enough for wiktionary. We shouldn't make the assumption that every new language wants to start with a wikipedia, or that the members of one language will be all interested in doing the same thing at first.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Pitjant...
Oooh, that sounds like an *excellent* project.
(Pitjantjatjara is an Australian Aboriginal language. These languages are very small and many are in danger of dying out. I suspect a dictionary actually makes more sense as a first project for such a language than an encyclopedia. I also suspect a lot of the localisation of computer terms will actually be English words ;-)
- d.
Hoi, I would be thrilled with a Wikisource in Pitjantjara. This demonstrates the language even better. I can also imagine that making stories available for everyone and not for just an "ivory tower" would provide a great argument to use a Wikisource.
PS and how about a Wikibook explaining the grammar and rules of the language ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 17, 2008 12:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Pitjant...
Oooh, that sounds like an *excellent* project.
(Pitjantjatjara is an Australian Aboriginal language. These languages are very small and many are in danger of dying out. I suspect a dictionary actually makes more sense as a first project for such a language than an encyclopedia. I also suspect a lot of the localisation of computer terms will actually be English words ;-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I would be thrilled with a Wikisource in Pitjantjara. This demonstrates the language even better. I can also imagine that making stories available for everyone and not for just an "ivory tower" would provide a great argument to use a Wikisource.
Exactly. Wikipedia is famous, but an encyclopedia in the restrictive Wikipedia sense isn't the first answer for everyone. A general compendium (encyclopedia, dictionary, source and quotes in one) might be. There's lots of ways to do something useful in that language :-)
- d.
Hoi, Do I understand that you want something like a "Wikicompendium", a resource that would be particularly geared towards the least resourced languages ?? What you can do is have a wiki with namespaces for particular types of information. You may also want to read/comment on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Providing_information_when_there_is_little_or..., it describes many of the concepts that could apply.
This year is the UNESCO Year of the Language. When we set up a project like this, we are likely get a lot of appreciation for this !!
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 17, 2008 12:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I would be thrilled with a Wikisource in Pitjantjara. This demonstrates
the
language even better. I can also imagine that making stories available
for
everyone and not for just an "ivory tower" would provide a great
argument to
use a Wikisource.
Exactly. Wikipedia is famous, but an encyclopedia in the restrictive Wikipedia sense isn't the first answer for everyone. A general compendium (encyclopedia, dictionary, source and quotes in one) might be. There's lots of ways to do something useful in that language :-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Do I understand that you want something like a "Wikicompendium", a resource that would be particularly geared towards the least resourced languages ??
I'm not asking for one as such, I'm just floating it as an idea. In a language with not much currently online at all, I suspect anything is more useful than nothing.
This year is the UNESCO Year of the Language. When we set up a project like this, we are likely get a lot of appreciation for this !!
Indeed!
- d.
On 17/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Do I understand that you want something like a "Wikicompendium", a resource that would be particularly geared towards the least resourced languages ??
I'm not asking for one as such, I'm just floating it as an idea. In a language with not much currently online at all, I suspect anything is more useful than nothing.
"Wikicorpus". Take whatever you can get - dictionary entries, wordlists, poetry...
Makes a lot of sense for the smaller languages, and would be a *lot* more practical as our contribution to language-preservation than a formal encyclopedia would.
I very much support this. We have discussed the issue some time ago in Russian WP (we have a support project for minor FSU languages). For really minor languages, say, several hundred or several thousand native speakers, for instance, Chukchi or Evenki, Wikipedia is not realistic. It is just improbable that more than one enthusiastic editor comes along to create encyclopedic articles (remember, all speakers of these languages are at least bilingual). On the other hand, there is virtually nothing in these languages to be found online. If a group of people gets interested in saving the language from extinction, they must start not from a Wikipedia, but from smth with contains a dictionary (like in Wiktionary), some may be language manuals (like in Wikibooks), some texts (like in a Wikisource) provided the copyright issues are sorted out etc. And smth like a Wikicompendium for such languages would be the only way to develop their projects within the WMF. (I must say though that the requirement of full localization may just scare these people off - in the languages I mentioned, the projects could very well start from the Russian interface as default, and the participants could be asked for some other way to prove their interest, for instance, writing 200 articles before getting out of the incubator, or smth else). Also, some of the existing Wikipedias which are not dead but also do not exactly flourish could be re-classify to Wikicompendia.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On Jan 16, 2008 6:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
Indeed. Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikisource were created because the English Wikipedia community at the time decided those things didn't go in "an encyclopedia." Another community may well decide otherwise.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a community that wants to write a dictionary, and then decides that the articles that are springing up are not "dictionaryish" enough for wiktionary. We shouldn't make the assumption that every new language wants to start with a wikipedia, or that the members of one language will be all interested in doing the same thing at first.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here's my 2 cents, plus Zimbabwean inflation...
I think this is a great idea. Localisation is interlinked with the setting up of a Wiktionary project; a cultural identity is Wikipediaesque; where the community is geographically focused there will be an element of Wikinews for some local events; preservation of the language requires books in it; spreading it further by teaching is a Wikiversity principle which ties all these things together - learn the language, contribute to the dictionary entries, document (and celebrate) the culture.
So, yes, if someone says we need a "Wikicompedium" version for smaller languages, I'm all for it. As separate projects they might never get the momentum to take off. As a mish-mash of all the projects where one day you can be a reporter, the next define the less-well known words you just used in a dictionary, sounds good to me.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter Sent: 17 January 2008 13:08 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Localisation of MediaWiki
I very much support this. We have discussed the issue some time ago in Russian WP (we have a support project for minor FSU languages). For really minor languages, say, several hundred or several thousand native speakers, for instance, Chukchi or Evenki, Wikipedia is not realistic. It is just improbable that more than one enthusiastic editor comes along to create encyclopedic articles (remember, all speakers of these languages are at least bilingual). On the other hand, there is virtually nothing in these languages to be found online. If a group of people gets interested in saving the language from extinction, they must start not from a Wikipedia, but from smth with contains a dictionary (like in Wiktionary), some may be language manuals (like in Wikibooks), some texts (like in a Wikisource) provided the copyright issues are sorted out etc. And smth like a Wikicompendium for such languages would be the only way to develop their projects within the WMF. (I must say though that the requirement of full localization may just scare these people off - in the languages I mentioned, the projects could very well start from the Russian interface as default, and the participants could be asked for some other way to prove their interest, for instance, writing 200 articles before getting out of the incubator, or smth else). Also, some of the existing Wikipedias which are not dead but also do not exactly flourish could be re-classify to Wikicompendia.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On Jan 16, 2008 6:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
One idea that still kicks around in my head is the idea that a language's first project should not be a "wikipedia" or a "wikibooks", but instead an undifferentiated, general-purpose wiki that can be used to encompass all the various projects. For instance, you start out with a project on which you can write articles/books/quotes/news/etc. Once you reach certain goals, you will be allowed to differentiate certain projects: A wikipedia, then a wikinews, a wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. In this way, speakers of a foreign language have the capability to write books/articles/news/quotes/dictionaries/etc all at once. Think of it like an incubator for a single language.
Indeed. Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikisource were created because the English Wikipedia community at the time decided those things didn't go in "an encyclopedia." Another community may well decide otherwise.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a community that wants to write a dictionary, and then decides that the articles that are springing up are not "dictionaryish" enough for wiktionary. We shouldn't make the assumption that every new language wants to start with a wikipedia, or that the members of one language will be all interested in doing the same thing at first.
--Andrew Whitworth
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
On Jan 16, 2008 9:25 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
GerardM and I had a long phone conference about localization requirements, and we've reached a consensus.
Cormac raises a valid concern about the difficulty of localization alongside all the other tasks of opening a new wiki, but the new requirements actually mean less work is needed for the first project. The previous requirements called for the translation of around 1400 messages for the first wiki, and around 200 messages for the second wiki. The new requirements only call for the translation of 500 messages for the first wiki, and 1700 before the second wiki is approved (by which time many messages have usually been translated over time by the first wiki's community).
Even though the new requirements include all extension used by Wikimedia wikis, this is redistributed so that the difficulty of opening the first wiki is reduced, and localization can be done slowly over time until the second project instead of in a huge one-time batch.
Thanks for this, Jesse. I hadn't understood (and I take it from your mail) that there is a 'staggered' process for localisation - that new projects are to be asked to translate a set number of messages, and subsequent ones the rest (that haven't already been done by the first). On the language here, perhaps my delineation of "first" and "subsequent" projects up till now ("first" being projects that have begun before this policy changing, and "subsequent" being new projects) was causing confusion - or perhaps I'm still confused. :-) Anyway, I think a staggered process is better than a huge one-time batch - but it still seems like an awful lot of work (on top of other pressures), and I am just wondering how best to distribute the work...
Cormac
Hoi, The bounty program that I announced the other day is designed to help us improve the localisation for many languages dramatically. We hope and expect that many languages will be helped to the level that allows only for occasional maintenance. What we can do is help languages become adequately localised. It is for the combined communities for a language to ensure that MediaWiki remains properly localised.
These communities can be from many places. I talked with the good people of Wikihow yesterday, they have a project in Urdu, and they are interested in helping us out with the Urdu localisation. There are many other organisations that have worked on localisation. When they incorporate their work in BetaWiki, it becomes part of MediaWiki and consequently more people are served with the work done when it becomes part of a new release. With more people finding their way to BetaWiki it will be less stressful to maintain a MediaWiki installation for languages other then English.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 17, 2008 1:25 PM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 9:25 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
GerardM and I had a long phone conference about localization requirements, and we've reached a consensus.
Cormac raises a valid concern about the difficulty of localization alongside all the other tasks of opening a new wiki, but the new requirements actually mean less work is needed for the first project. The previous requirements called for the translation of around 1400 messages for the first wiki, and around 200 messages for the second wiki. The new requirements only call for the translation of 500 messages for the first wiki, and 1700 before the second wiki is approved (by which time many messages have usually been translated over time by the first wiki's community).
Even though the new requirements include all extension used by Wikimedia wikis, this is redistributed so that the difficulty of opening the first wiki is reduced, and localization can be done slowly over time until the second project instead of in a huge one-time batch.
Thanks for this, Jesse. I hadn't understood (and I take it from your mail) that there is a 'staggered' process for localisation - that new projects are to be asked to translate a set number of messages, and subsequent ones the rest (that haven't already been done by the first). On the language here, perhaps my delineation of "first" and "subsequent" projects up till now ("first" being projects that have begun before this policy changing, and "subsequent" being new projects) was causing confusion - or perhaps I'm still confused. :-) Anyway, I think a staggered process is better than a huge one-time batch - but it still seems like an awful lot of work (on top of other pressures), and I am just wondering how best to distribute the work...
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org