At 10:29 AM 3/11/03 -0600, Takuya Murata wrote
Sorry. I see what I mean was not so clear. Some
policities
such as NPOV are inalienable. We are buliding a sole
international, multilingual encyclopedia not the collection
of encyclopedias in different languges.
Sure.
We can also claim we don't have exactly the same goals
as they were defined on the english wiki; we can claim
we don't use the same means; we can claim the
community doesnot function the same way. We can claim
each wikipedia has a set of individual references. We
may.
But, still, we share common software, that requires
common agreement on some points.
No, the goal should be the same, that is, building free
encylopedia, which is under GFDL and edited by everyone.
I have come to see some people fear allowing more automity
might undermine the coherence in the whole project of
wikipedia. I totally agree with that.
What I don't like is that it seems to me non-English edition
tends to replicate the English edition. Non-english editions
should not be translation version of English edition. Comma
is a good example that we simply applied English system to
Japanese edition. And worse, the problem remains unsolved
for long time. Something wrong. No?
Agreed. The interlanguage links should be a tool, not a restriction.
If someone who knows Japanese is reading an article on the English
wikipedia and sees a link to the Japanese one, they can follow it.
But neither needs to be a translation of the other. There's no rule
against translating, of course, if a contributor finds it useful, but
the details may well differ, and of course the structure. Comma
count is an excellent example.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org