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:
- 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 :-)