Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
Jiaqing Bao ti 2004/12/25 ChS 03:37 sia-kong:
I believe there has to be some principles in
minor language
Wikipedias. Setting up an encyclopedia is not just about self
expression, it has to serve public good. Moreover, proposals and
actual performances have to stand some very basic prima facie scrutiny.
"Public good", but which public? Be careful that public good does not
mean the welfare of the dominant-language population, the State, or
your local police department. Quite often speakers of "minority
languages" have a complex relationship with the dominant-language
speakers, whose dominant status often extends into social, economic
and political domains, all of which are interwined with language issues.
"Public good" like "national security" can often be used as an excuse
for all manner of sins. Democracy too has its dark side.
And the
limited active contributors also may have a very restricted
knowledge base. The five of them may not know much about astronomy
for example. They may translate. They could make mistakes. They could
also selectively translate less important parts of an article because
they may not know much about the mathematics, physics, chemistry,
history ... about that subject. Unless they can ask others to join,
their works may not be trusted.
Bad translations, selective translations, mistakes...these are all
part of the WP process. For large WPs the process is accelerated; for
smaller ones, the cycle may be slower. The difference is
quantitative, not qualitative.
I've frequently tended to visualize the entire 'pedia as expressive of
some kind of fractal geometry with new bits popping up all over the
place, and gradually merging into a coherent and cohesive whole. If too
much effort is put into criticizing and excising the bits the final
result shows a lot of scar tissue.
In case the
user knows how to double check, it may not be a problem.
However, if a user still has to consult a mainstream language source,
it makes that minor Wikipedia less relevant. And if the user cannot
read another language and failed to find another minor language
source, the bug-ridden Wikipedia could do more harm than good. An
encyclopedia has to serve a public good to justify its existence.
Every WP article is based on a source or a set of sources. If the
source is correctly informative, it is a good source, regardless of
what language it is in. So the idea that a "minor [sic.] Wikipedia"
article drawing on a mainstream language source is somehow redundant
or "less genuine" reflects more of a condescending attitude toward
"minority things" than a reasoned argument. It also reflects a
mistaken view that a good translation is a non-creative work and that
"information" exists independently of language.
Saying that an 'encyclopedia "has to" serve a public good to justify its
existence.' strikes me as unduly utilitarian. Besides the already
mentioned problem of defining the public good, it tends to ignore the
fact that fun, relaxation and mental health are also a part of the
public good. Increasingly, the educational community has come to
appreciate that rote repetition may not be the best way to teach
children. Children learn best when they are having fun, or when the
material being studied has relevence and meaning in their own lives.
I accept that a good translation is a creative work, but are we really
promoting the idea that minor language wikipedias should stress
translations. I think that it's far more important for these limited
contributor pools to emphasize topics that are significant to their
particualar cultures. Math and physics may not be the most important
topics to some of these cultures; too much emphasis on translating them
could have the effect of imposing a foreign cultural framework.
Traditional Chinese medicine has an ancient theoretical lineage that has
mostly received peremptory rejection because it does not accord with
3,000 years of Western intellectual development. I would disagree on
whether information exists independently of language, but that
philosophical discussion would take us too far afield from the immediate
concern.
Each language imparts its own systemic biases on knowledge, but that
problem is not solved by imposing one pre-determined set of biases as
represented by one language. That would be the path to sterility. The
dynamic tension between the different paths enriches us all. Preserving
and cherishing the minor languages is as important as preserving and
cherishing the obscure plant in the Amazon jungle which at some
unspecified "may" give us the key to solve major medical challenges.
It is a bad
idea to setup encyclopedias in so many languages. I don't
mind if anyone wants to start a Wiki in Pig Latin or Nadsat. You can
easily auto translate English into these two artificial languages.
But for many minor languages, it may be not feasible. The few
articles could be untrustworthy. Wikipedia is not a language
conservation project. The reason why people trust English Wikipedia
is because of the number of contributors and fact checkers. We don't
want this site to become the largest source of rumor.
Wikipedia may not be a language conservation project, but it is surely
a language _amplification_ project.
I like the analogy. Just like a radio takes an otherwise undetectable
signal from the ether, and turns it into something meaningful.
As for English WP being trustworthy, no doubt many
trust it. But it
is only because not enough people trust it that it has continued to
improve. The moment all of us trust it entirely would be the time for
Wikipedia to shut down.
Although I mostly work in English, I would not be so vain as to consider
it the most trustworthy. Trustworthiness tends to support systemic
bias. Many of our American colleagues tend to work exclusively in
English. Thus, when it comes to discussing the major political issues
of the day the general middle ground of the American POV will be much
more influential in English language projects. Similar comments about
other nations in other languages could also be valid. Nevertheless I
would never take that state of things as excuse enough for promoting the
ideal that corresponding articles in other languages should be perfect
translations of each other.
All the more reason to have an on-line, FREE
encyclopedia. Sure, it
won't be perfect but Wikipedians prefer asymptotic improvement to
pseudo-perfection. Small and tiny WPs have a slower cycle but the
process is not fundamentally different.
That's what it's all about.
Ec