The problem is, "most of the world" - especially the most of the world without computers - doesn't speak English.
For that matter, in the computerless world, even languages such as German and French and Spanish are relatively rare. We are talking here about targeting entire continents such as Africa which are best served by native-language content which we cannot currently provide in any way shape or form. We have growing Arabic and Afrikaans Wikipedias, a minimal Swahili Wikipedia, just beginning Wolof, Bambara, Zulu, Somali, and Amharic Wikipedias, and can already obviously provide English, French, and Portuguese-language content for those Africans who can speak these languages fluently.
Most of the other places where the vast majority is computerless speak primarily languages with small or nonexistant Wikipedias. Take, for example, Bhutan. How large is the Dzongkha Wikipedia?
Or Khmer. How big is the Khmer Wikipedia?
I just hope we don't send out copies in languages people can't read or can barely read. That would be linguistic imperialism at its worst, suggesting to these people that their langauge is not good enough because we can't provide them material in it. In places like Cambodia or Bhutan this may not be too harmful because the national language is the source of a lot of national pride, but elsewhere (African nations, Native America, aboriginal Australia, autonomous Russia) it could contribute to the already worrysome trend of rapid decline of minority languages.
Until now languages of the "have nots" have been largely protected by the absence of mass media and other technology which usually serves only to hurt minority languages (although it can help in many cases), but mass distribution of for example Wikipedia in an LWC could be devastating to many languages which until now had relatively secure futures.
This is not to say we should limit access to information to save languages. However, we should think carefully before mass distribution of print editions - what language do these people speak best, and can we provide content in that language? If not, would it be possible to launch a campaign for the growth of a native-language Wikipedia?
My point is, I would be heartbroken if English copies of Wikipedia print editions are handed out in schools on Hopi, or the school in Havasupai, or schools in the Tohono O'odham Nation or the Navajo Nation or the Gaeltachta.
Mark
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:09:25 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[crossposted to wikipedia-l, wikien-l, wikitech-l]
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [050222 20:25]:
"A small price to pay for a project like this. But get a move on with all those ambitious plans for paper versions. Most of the world doesn't have computers." by Anonymous
The closest we appear to have to an active plan for this is ... mine!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0This relies on rating code (so as to let the Wiki do the work - editorial committees don't scale, editors with opinions will).
Jimbo's idea - which passes the "simple brilliant elegance" test - is to set up ratings on a large Wikipedia (e.g. en:!) and just gather data for a month or whatever. Then release the data for everyone to look at and make sense of.
This relies on someone who knows PHP writing rating code, or better yet beating Magnus Manske's existing rating code into production quality ...
I could install MediaWiki at home (it runs on FreeBSD, right?) and hack on it here. And, ahahaha, learn PHP, of which I know not a jot or tittle. And I haven't written anything longer than a quickie shell script since 1993. "Rusty" isn't in it.
So if SOMEONE ELSE who is interested and KNOWS PHP could come forward, that would be *really good*!
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l