The Cunctator a écrit:
>>From: Ray Saintonge on Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:45 PM
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>Ruimu a rit:
>>>
>>>>"Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
>>>>
>>>>>Each wikipia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
>>>>>not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules.
>>>>>Respecting
>>>>>some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
>>>>
>>>>Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I
>>>
> guess.
>
>>>>In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the
>>>>same entry
>>>>in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try
>>>>to reach
>>>>universalism.)
>>>>Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be
>>>>the same
>>>>as French one or Rwandese one.
>>>
>>>I do not think in theory each wp entry should be a translation of
>>
> the
>
>>>other languages. It is too ideal :-)
>>>I think each should have its specificity, its special taste. Then we
>>>can inspire from the other versions to set each local version.
>>>you are true that chinese npov should be the same than french or
>>>rwandese one of course. But that might be expressed differently.
>>
>>I agree with Anthère. There are very few rules that should apply in
>
> the
>
>>same way to all languages. The idea of NPOV should apply to all
>>languages, but the way it's implemented is going to change. Something
>>might be a problem for one language, but not for another.
>
>
> I have to say that on principle and as a matter of policy I strongly
> disagree with Ray and Anthere. The overall goal *does* need to be that
> each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the same entry in any
> language.
>
> Each language version should *not* have its own special taste.
>
> As a matter of course the fact that languages are intertwined with
> ethnicity, nationality, and modes of expression means that the same
> content will be discussed differently in different languages.
I must admit I see not how you reconcile the idea that an entry "should
be a perfect translation" and the idea the content of an entry "will be
discussed differently in different languages".
> As a matter of course the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project
> means that contributions are shaped by the contributors' individual
> priorities. As French-speakers have statistically different priorities
> than English-speakers or Chinese-speakers, as a matter of course the
> language versions will have differently weighted contributions.
>
> But we should not have *as a goal* different priorities, different
> discussions of the same content.
I agree with this
The goal, as Ruimi said, is to try to
> reach universalism.
Ruimi is very right here.
> It's a lot easier for Wikipedia contributors if we celebrate ethnic
> differences--and no matter how you slice it, celebrating the forking of
> the Wikipedia concept for each language is doing just that (and I'd be
> happy to hear convincing arguments otherwise)--but it's not better for
> Wikipedia.
>
> That said, we're still growing and I think there are many significant
> errors in judgment in terms of establishing policy for the
> English-language version of Wikipedia, and I'm not advocating using
> universalism as a club to make every language follow en.wiki's example.
>
> I *am* advocating two things:
> 1. Making it clear that the ultimate goal is universalism and
> consistency across all languages.
> 2. Improving the software to allow for better integration of the
> different languages (e.g. one user account, the option to have multiple
> languages in recent changes and watchlists, etc.)
> 3. Stop using mailing lists and use bulletin-board type systems
> integrated with Wikipedia.
>
> This is all we'd have to do, I suspect, to make sure that we do work
> towards the ultimate goal of universalism and consistency.
>
> --tc
very well said :-)