Mention of the software, I have some questions here:
Yes, Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese are originated from the
same language. But now it had grown into two different language. The problem of translating Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese is not only about characters (While translating from Simplified character to Traditional character is already a headache).Many of the phrases and idioms are different.
I wonder how software can solve this kind of problem. The only
way I think of to solve this problem is to redirect it one by one. Since
both SC and TC are living languages, this kind of phrases can
grow non-stop, making redirecting a hardwork.
Therefore, I think splitting into zh-tw isn't really too bad an idea.
Traditional Chinese users can build up their own database, while
some of the items can redirect to zh wp.
---------------------------------
Yahoo!奇摩Messenger6.0
即時有趣的即時通訊世界
立即下載更新最新版！
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Then what the hell is this:
> http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification
> Looks like a fork of the English Wikipedia's article on scientific
> classification to me.
Of course things like that may happen as everyone is allowed to edit
there. I guess the author of that article just was not aware of what the
page should be about. When wikispecies is finally set up things like that
are likely to be deleted.
My interest in such a project is setting up a species directory linking to
all the language editions of the Wikipedia. Jimbo formulated a non-forking
policy guideline and I have a great interest as well that the project
won't have any overlapping with Wikipedia. I am active in the German
Wikipedia and worked on several hundred animal articles there, and that
will remain my main activity. If I would suspect the project of becoming a
Bio-Wikipedia or something like that I would immediately vote to suspend
the project. But now it is intended to work within Wikispecies on a
concept for the project in order to not become a fork. Until then, I
wouldn't take articles by single individuals (like the "Classification"
article) seriously.
Benedikt Mandl is not a Wikipedian, but there are many long-time
contributors to Wikipedia interested in the Wikispecies project. Do you
think that they all want to damage Wikipedia? I believe that Wikispecies
could work for the benefit of Wikipedia if it is done right. Otherwise I
would never consider working on it.
Mirko
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>One question:
>
>Is the level of detail in this article:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Zion_and_Kolob_canyons_area
>
>appropriate for Wikipedia? Or would it be better to have such an article in a
>Wikigeology project? I would certainly hate to see similarly detailed [[Biology
>of ...]] articles not be created for species in Wikipedia because the same
>content is in Wikispecies. Or worse, for them to exist in both and thus half
>the contributor base working on each of them.
>
The article is perfectly suitable for Wikipedia, which is why it's a
Featured Article. No doubt that's the conclusion you intend for us to
draw. What I would expect to have in a Wikigeology project is more data
rather than prose. Things like precise measurements of different strata
and substrata at various precise locations, or results of radioactive or
carbon dating from specific samples (the exact data might be different,
I'm just guessing and I'm no geologist). The data could be meaningful
regardless of language, though presumably some agreed standard language
would be necessary for a framework.
This is similar to my understanding of Wikispecies will be. Indeed, that
is what Wikispecies will have to be in order to succeed, and even then
success is not guaranteed. If Wikispecies does not establish an
independent justification for existence, it simply will not attract
enough interest because the bulk of contributors will not bother to redo
their Wikipedia work elsewhere.
The community's real decisions are often not made in these discussions,
or in the pronouncements of the Board, but because people "vote with
their feet", or in this case their hands at the keyboard. That is why
all this debate, however acrimonious, is not really decisive in saying
there is or is not a consensus for Wikispecies. The consensus will only
be seen over time, and is sometimes easier to find by listening and
watching than by arguing. Our representatives on the Board try hard to
do that, though perhaps they might have deliberated a little longer and
done more to prepare the ground for this new project.
--Michael Snow
--- Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
> I think that level is fine for Wikipedia. A geology project would
> have to go into much more detail, and structure the facts in a more
> systematic way.
I also plan to create Wikipedia articles on each formation once I find a good
source for that. At that point, there really isn't much more to say so I don't
know what a Wikigeology project would cover that could not be naturally covered
in Wikipedia.
Although a spatial database showing the extent, thickness, and composition of
each formation at every studied point and the relationships between formations
would be most useful....
> It would be fine, however, to doubt the usefulness of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AF107
Well that's a stub so of course there could be doubts about its usefulness.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 15 Sep 2004, at 15:36, wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:49:20 +0200
> From: Mirko Thiessen <wikipedia(a)mirko-thiessen.de>
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> I have NO opinion on the matter, but PURELY as a ''suggestion'': If
>> Wikispecies was implemented as a portal, after the example of the
>> German
>> Wikipedia (eg. cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Medizin) --
>> with
>> all the individual articles inside the WP, maybe named
>> [[Species:Whatever]] -- would that be a compromise that people might
>> be
>> more happy to accept?
>
>
> This project is about indexing 1 or 2 million species - in addition
> Wikispecies was intended to be a language-independent project, so in
> which
> Wikipedia would you want to have it? And who would want to have 2
> Million
> database entries scattered over Wikipedia?
Good points.
I was on the fence but your points have just convinced me that
Wikispecies as currently implemented is the way to go.
I would still encourage making cross-linking between Wikispecies and
the various Wikipedias as widespread and as easy as possible, but
frankly I think you're right.
> However, I start to think that this Wikispecies project is not worth
> the
> trouble. If people feel that they must leave Wikipedia just because
> this
> project is started then I tend to say forget it.
>
>
> Mirko
Please stay and bear with us.
Noise and discontent is all part of the democratic process.
-- Jens
Jens Ropers wrote:
> I have NO opinion on the matter, but PURELY as a ''suggestion'': If
> Wikispecies was implemented as a portal, after the example of the German
> Wikipedia (eg. cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Medizin) -- with
> all the individual articles inside the WP, maybe named
> [[Species:Whatever]] -- would that be a compromise that people might be
> more happy to accept?
This project is about indexing 1 or 2 million species - in addition
Wikispecies was intended to be a language-independent project, so in which
Wikipedia would you want to have it? And who would want to have 2 Million
database entries scattered over Wikipedia?
However, I start to think that this Wikispecies project is not worth the
trouble. If people feel that they must leave Wikipedia just because this
project is started then I tend to say forget it.
Mirko
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:03:24 +0800
> From: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:31:11 -0700, Mark Williamson
> <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There would be two separate subdomains, http://zh-tw.wikipedia.org/
>> and http://zh-cn.wikipedia.org/. If you visit the first, you will see
>> the UI in Traditional, and if you visit the latter the UI will be in
>> Simplified.
Obvious suggestion:
If this is accepted, then zh.wikipedia.org should also continue to
exist but simply present a choice of the two upon first access. Repeat
access could automatically lead to the chosen version, through use of a
cookie (this latter bit might be very controversial, some people hate
cookies).
-- Jens
On 15 Sep 2004, at 04:59, wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:00:09 +0200
> From: Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
<snip>
I have NO opinion on the matter, but PURELY as a ''suggestion'': If
Wikispecies was implemented as a portal, after the example of the
German Wikipedia (eg. cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Medizin)
-- with all the individual articles inside the WP, maybe named
[[Species:Whatever]] -- would that be a compromise that people might be
more happy to accept?
The problem of already having announced species.wikipedia.org could be
solved with a redirect, or maybe the entire Wikispecies thing could be
left standing, but with automatic import of all the content into the
aforedescribed [[WikiSpecies Portal]] and [[Species:blahblah]]
-articles?
Just a thought.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com