On Friday 11 October 2002 12:40 am, The Cunctato wrote:
On 10/10/02 6:41 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
Granted the English Wikipedia is the oldest and largest but it shouldn't be vaulted as /The Main/ Wikipedia with the other languages relegated to second class status in The Main WIkipedia's shadow.
By the same token, the English-lang Wikipedia is the oldest and largest (by far), and it shouldn't be shoved around simply for the sake of political correctness.
? How is finally having the English Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org shoving around the English Wikipedia? All the others are at xx.wikipedia.org so this isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 04:00, Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Friday 11 October 2002 12:40 am, The Cunctato wrote:
On 10/10/02 6:41 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
Granted the English Wikipedia is the oldest and largest but it shouldn't be vaulted as /The Main/ Wikipedia with the other languages relegated to second class status in The Main WIkipedia's shadow.
By the same token, the English-lang Wikipedia is the oldest and largest (by far), and it shouldn't be shoved around simply for the sake of political correctness.
? How is finally having the English Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org shoving around the English Wikipedia? All the others are at xx.wikipedia.org so this isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal.
By writing "finally having" you imply inevitability. That certainly isn't the case. One could also write "How is redirecting the overwhelming preponderance of all Wikipedia entries shoving around the English Wikipedia? A small percentage of entries are at xx.wikipedia.org so this isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal (where equality means having every language group be given equivalent URLs, even though that concept of equality ignores the gross differences in the representation of the groups)."
By definition doing "what is fair and equal" for groups with unequal representation is being politically correct. The Wikipedia entry [[political correctness]] is pretty good.
Some acts of political correctness are good and necessary; but many aim to solve important problems with surface changes, and this proposed act is largely the latter.
Cunc, as I understand it, you have three points to your argument:
1. it's a disruption 2. it's a minor fix to a larger problem 3. why should the largest wikipedia have to move anyway?
1 has been adressed earlier. we've moved domain name before. 2 -- yes, I agree. The problem is larger than this. But this is a significant move. Like mav said, it's *symbolic*. it's not the solution, but it's part of it. It shows that the other languages are siblings -- younger siblings, yes, -- but not subordinates.
I fear I cannot answer point 3. I seems to me to stem from a fundamentally different view of life. But I trust that should the German Wikipedia ever grow larger than the English, you will be in favour of it acquiring the coveted www. domain, with the English being demoted to en: ?
Anyway, if we're talking numbers, we should save www. for the Chinese Wikipedia ;-)
An older post of yours says:
More effort should be put into building the cross-link capabilities,
perhaps with some automatic dictionary translations.
Yes. But please please please can we drop this idea of "automatic dictionary translations". Try it sometime. Computers cannot translate.
The Cunctator wrote:
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 04:00, Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Friday 11 October 2002 12:40 am, The Cunctato wrote:
On 10/10/02 6:41 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
Granted the English Wikipedia is the oldest and largest but it shouldn't be vaulted as /The Main/ Wikipedia with the other languages relegated to second class status in The Main WIkipedia's shadow.
By the same token, the English-lang Wikipedia is the oldest and largest (by far), and it shouldn't be shoved around simply for the sake of political correctness.
? How is finally having the English Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org shoving around the English Wikipedia? All the others are at xx.wikipedia.org so this isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal.
By writing "finally having" you imply inevitability. That certainly isn't the case. One could also write "How is redirecting the overwhelming preponderance of all Wikipedia entries shoving around the English Wikipedia? A small percentage of entries are at xx.wikipedia.org so this isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal (where equality means having every language group be given equivalent URLs, even though that concept of equality ignores the gross differences in the representation of the groups)."
By definition doing "what is fair and equal" for groups with unequal representation is being politically correct. The Wikipedia entry [[political correctness]] is pretty good.
Some acts of political correctness are good and necessary; but many aim to solve important problems with surface changes, and this proposed act is largely the latter.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
But this is a significant move. Like mav said, it's *symbolic*. it's not the solution, but it's part of it. It shows that the other languages are siblings -- younger siblings, yes
I disagree. Its only symbolic, and thats why its its neither significant, nor part of any real solution.
It's an inconvenience to the vast majority of the users, and the only gain is that it is a meaningless sop to people who (IMHO) don't have a legitimate grievance in the first place.
I disagree. Its only symbolic, and thats why its its neither significant, nor part of any real solution.
It's an inconvenience to the vast majority of the users, and the only gain is that it is a meaningless sop to people who (IMHO) don't have a legitimate grievance in the first place.
Are you considering only the spanish wiki issue here (so a soothing option to make them come back) or all non-english wikis when you raise illegitimate grievance ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Gareth & cunc. I thought we had agreed on some basics:
* that the Spanish Fork is a bad thing * that we'd like them to come back * that the other non-English wikipedias often feel ignored & sidelined.
Your last post seems to backtrack on the above.
Yes, compared to including them in software & policy debate, changing the URLs is a minor point. If we did *only* that, it would indeed be a sop.
Gareth Owen wrote:
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
But this is a significant move. Like mav said, it's *symbolic*. it's not the solution, but it's part of it. It shows that the other languages are siblings -- younger siblings, yes
I disagree. Its only symbolic, and thats why its its neither significant, nor part of any real solution.
It's an inconvenience to the vast majority of the users, and the only gain is that it is a meaningless sop to people who (IMHO) don't have a legitimate grievance in the first place.
Given all the good comments made here and Ed message of a couple of days ago, here's my position (I asked other french-sp, dunno what they think yet) on the www.wikipedia.org
amha (french translation for imho, nicely provided by our french linguist)
1)There's a need for a portal page stating the existence of all the wikis, a few infos about each, and a direct link to each. This page should be at wikipedia.org.
2)A very new comer *should* transit at least once through that page. This is very important. I remember it took me quite a while to find out there were other langages. It might seem obvious to english-native-sp., but the main page on the en.wiki is showing quite a lot of information, and many foreign words at the same place don't make it easy to find out the little link that could help toward one's langage. Directly sending readers to the en.wiki might make us loose all those who don't know english or feel inconfortable with it.
3)However, given that most actual users are english-native-sp, given that most users understand english, and *mostly* given that the fewer links to get to the information the better (one click less is a win-win option :-)), I think it essential to track that first passage and to give direct passage to the right encyclopedia as soon as preferences are given (in other words, at the second session)
This mean either/or/and
3a) Cookie. After the first visit, the second-time visiting user is automatically redirected to the encyclopedia chosen the first time (most likely, the english one).
3b) Preferences options : choice of the preferred encyclopedia in the settings. Once a user is known (with login), typing wikipedia.org should lead him to the appropriate link (en. in most cases). This may allow to change the settings of a person who has first visited, say polish wiki, but now wants english as default.
4) On all wikis, the link to wiki.org should be *very* visible, especially since it is possible the direct links to other wikis on main pages will maybe be removed. In this case, there should be no redirection of course :-)
This way, it should not happen very often that a user has to transit more than once by the main wiki.
I will add of course, for those multilingal, that prefs should allow a prime choice, and secondary choices for wikis direct access. The secondary choice should provide a direct link to the second prefered wiki any time whatever wiki she/he is on and whatever page.
My opinion is that this main page is mostly important to unknown users to choose the right directions. It is not important to us, who know the project, and know how to navigate between the various places.
A relogin issue is amha *not* a argument for deciding the move or not. The Wikipedia evolution should not only go forward our *convenience* but the final user *convenience* (us AND others).
However, I can't figure what the problem of keeping links on both address is. This issue is certainly more important.
Oh ! on that login issue !
I have a technical question along those lines. I am always recognised on the fr.wiki.org and fr.wiki.com, so I never need to connect myself. I am NEVER RECOGNISED on the meta.com, meta.org, wiki.com and wiki.org. I NEED TO LOGIN for each session (not once a month). Often I start on the fr.wiki, then jump through the link on the main page. I always have to relogin. This is mildly annoying. What are the differences between these cases ? (same on opera and netscape)
That would be my only answer to comments such as "logging in one time is gonna be a terrible inconvenience"
In the past month, given that I have to work with at least one window in these 3 adresses (now 4), often 2 windows in each wiki for copy and pasting here and there, I believe I can evaluate the number of time I have been logging in to about 10 times per days, that would make about 300 TIMES IN THE MONTH. I certainly don't need the mailing list to remind me my password ! I have already asked a couple of time for an idea of why it was so....Thanks for any idea anybody could provide to solve that.
Gareth maybe ??
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:41, Anthere wrote:
Given all the good comments made here and Ed message of a couple of days ago, here's my position (I asked other french-sp, dunno what they think yet) on the www.wikipedia.org
amha (french translation for imho, nicely provided by our french linguist)
1)There's a need for a portal page stating the existence of all the wikis, a few infos about each, and a direct link to each. This page should be at wikipedia.org.
Unfortunately, the portal page is just about the most bankrupt concept possible in terms of usability, and online, usability is just about all you've got. The harm of adding one more click to users, both new and old, is measurable and huge.
www.wikipedia.org already has all the portalness it needs in its two paragraphs of intro. The article count should probably count all the languages, but that's about it.
Right now the different language versions of WP are separate wikis; that should not be the permanent case. And that is what should be focused on here.
1)There's a need for a portal page stating the existence of all the wikis, a few infos about each, and a direct link to each. This page should be at wikipedia.org.
Unfortunately, the portal page is just about the most bankrupt concept possible in terms of usability, and online, usability is just about all you've got. The harm of adding one more click to users, both new and old, is measurable and huge.
One more click *only once* does not look like *huge* to me. Only once. And one more login *only once* even less.
www.wikipedia.org already has all the portalness it needs in its two paragraphs of intro. The article count should probably count all the languages, but that's about it.
Maybe there is a confusion here. Right now, the www.wikipedia.org is the english wikipedia. Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia. Right now, the www.wikipedia.org introduction text is entirely in english.
So how does the actual www.wikipedia.org page could be considered a portal ??? Sorry I don't get it. Maybe, we should then think about what a portal is, because we obviously are not talking about the same thing.
The www.wikipedia.org portal page I am talking about is something inspired from the one Tarquin and Mav and others have been working on at meta.
Are we on the same line of understanding here, or are we just talking of two different things ?
Right now the different language versions of WP are separate wikis; that should not be the permanent case. And that is what should be focused on here.
I would personnaly highly prefer interlinguage links are improved, before any portal page.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia.
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
But they seem plenty prominent enough.
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia.
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
Check the German and Dutch Wikipedias; they already use the 'native' name for other languages.
Andre Engels
"Jimmy Wales" skribis:
Anthere wrote:
Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia.
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
But not Latin, which Anthere requested.
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
This type of translation is already implemented in the german, nederlands, ... wikipedias.
I recently asked myself why not also in the english, danish, ... wikipedias.
Simply have a look.
Paul
Paul Ebermann wrote:
"Jimmy Wales" skribis:
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
This type of translation is already implemented in the german, nederlands, ... wikipedias.
I recently asked myself why not also in the english, danish, ... wikipedias.
I've got a partial list, I'm changing them over as I get around to them.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
But they seem plenty prominent enough.
Right. That suits me enough personnaly, so I won't proceed any further. But, from a conceptual point of view, that is certainly not a portal. That's an *english* main page, with links to other languages. Sorry, but I like words to be used in their context.
fran�ais
It would require the c c�dille (�) to be coded properly in any langage though
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is certainly not a portal. That's an *english* main page, with links to other languages. Sorry, but I like words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is certainly not a portal.
That's
an *english* main page, with links to other languages. Sorry, but I
like
words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Can I suggest what many other sites have done? ok i thought so
A map of the world, click on a certain region, it takes you to whatever language is spoken there...
and below the map, text links to each language like this:
------------------------- | | MAP | ------------------------- [Espanol|English|Deutch|Francais.........]
_NO TEXT_ Except for the language Links.. this takes you to an introduction page in your language and yadda yadda yadda or wherever you want it to take you
Lightning any one have any objections
Can I suggest what many other sites have done? ok i thought so
A map of the world, click on a certain region, it takes you to whatever language is spoken there...
What language do I get if I click on Canada?
What language do I get if I click on mainland China? (You of course know that there is no such language as "Chinese.")
Where do I click if I want Esperanto or Latin?
Sean Barrett wrote:
Can I suggest what many other sites have done? ok i thought so
A map of the world, click on a certain region, it takes you to whatever language is spoken there...
What language do I get if I click on Canada?
What language do I get if I click on mainland China? (You of course know that there is no such language as "Chinese.")
Where do I click if I want Esperanto or Latin?
Well, obviously, when you hold the cursor over a given area it tells you what language it is linked to... and in some areas there would need to be a choice. Bear in mind that this is not providing the ability to start a wikipedia in any language of the world - it just has to link to the 12 or 15 where the work has already begun. So Canada would give you a choice of English or French... and China would take you to which ever dialect has been chosen for the 'Chinese' wikipedia.
What language do I get if I click on Canada?
What language do I get if I click on mainland China? (You of course know that there is no such language as "Chinese.")
Where do I click if I want Esperanto or Latin?
Well we can assume people have a certain level of intelligence I imagine. And can look at the bottom in the text links if they dont see their language, besides if the map is done right the whole map + text links should be able to be seen without scrolling to most everyone. (aim for 640x480). Oh and if you putt your mouse over the map most browsers display whatever is on the alt tag, or a tooltip thing, you can have that say the name of the language in its own laguage how bout that.... sounds reasonable.. anyone that argues with that is just being a pain in the ass in my opinion. there's no reason to be so picky and people really dont take such offense to that.. I mean if you really want to stretch it, maybe Quebec point to french...
seriously people... this whole political correctness stuff is getting to a ridiculous level... people have a certain ammount of intelligence and understanding... you cant please everyone
Lightning
All right, now that you have expressed your contempt for my questions, called me and pain in the ass, and questioned my intelligence ... are you going to answer the questions?
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Lightning Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 18:04 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] en.wikipedia.org vs www.wikipedia.org and the Wikipedia family
What language do I get if I click on Canada?
What language do I get if I click on mainland China? (You of course know that there is no such language as "Chinese.")
Where do I click if I want Esperanto or Latin?
Well we can assume people have a certain level of intelligence I imagine. And can look at the bottom in the text links if they dont see their language, besides if the map is done right the whole map + text links should be able to be seen without scrolling to most everyone. (aim for 640x480). Oh and if you putt your mouse over the map most browsers display whatever is on the alt tag, or a tooltip thing, you can have that say the name of the language in its own laguage how bout that.... sounds reasonable.. anyone that argues with that is just being a pain in the ass in my opinion. there's no reason to be so picky and people really dont take such offense to that.. I mean if you really want to stretch it, maybe Quebec point to french...
seriously people... this whole political correctness stuff is getting to a ridiculous level... people have a certain ammount of intelligence and understanding... you cant please everyone
Lightning
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
All right, now that you have expressed your contempt for my questions, called me and pain in the ass, and questioned my intelligence ... are you going to answer the questions?
Well, I guess I owe it to you.
What language do I get if I click on Canada?
English in most of canada, french in quebec, or maybe it takes you to a page that furthermore narrows it down. I think this is unneccessary, most people can figure this out and IMSHO, its really not offensive if you dont please every last person...
What language do I get if I click on mainland China? (You of course know that there is no such language as "Chinese.")
Whatever language we have that chinese people read. I think right now, there is none.
Where do I click if I want Esperanto or Latin?
The text links would list all the available languages, so you would look under, or on top, (or both) of the map, and click on the language of your choice if your language is not represented in the map
A language map might be a nice addition, but it shouldn't be the only way to select a language. Usability includes access for the blind, and the software they use can read lists--something that said "Deutsch, English, Espanol, Francais" would work, but a clickable map won't. (Pardon the lack of accents, please.)
A language map might be a nice addition, but it shouldn't be the only way to select a language. Usability includes access for the blind, and the software they use can read lists--something that said "Deutsch, English, Espanol, Francais" would work, but a clickable map won't. (Pardon the lack of accents, please.)
My suggestion called for a map AND text links.. here's a wack looking diagram of how it might look:
[English|Espanol|Francais|Deutch....] --------------------------- | | THIS IS A MAP :-) | --------------------------- [English|Espanol|Francais|Deutch....]
and ideally should be compact enough to be displayed without scrolling at all
Lightning wrote:
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is certainly not a portal.
That's
an *english* main page, with links to other languages. Sorry, but I
like
words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Can I suggest what many other sites have done? ok i thought so
A map of the world, click on a certain region, it takes you to whatever language is spoken there...
and below the map, text links to each language like this:
| | MAP |
[Espanol|English|Deutch|Francais.........]
_NO TEXT_ Except for the language Links.. this takes you to an introduction page in your language and yadda yadda yadda or wherever you want it to take you
If you're really concerned about language barriers that sounds like the way to go. The problem with the flag thing is then you have people squabbling about which flag should go next to the name, and why has theirs been left out etc etc... nobody can argue with a world map! Can they?
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is
certainly not a portal. That's
an *english* main page, with links to other
languages. Sorry, but I like
words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Is this type of question designed to make me sound as if I had absolutely no idea what I am talking about, or not worth listening because not using the best word, or designed to slow down any thinking process by drawing out a *detail*, or what ??
If such is your concern, explain *yourself* what *you* think is a portal, or better, explain what should be www.wikipedia.org page to your opinion.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" anthere5@yahoo.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 2:19 AM Subject: Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] en.wikipedia.org vs www.wikipedia.org and the Wikipedia family
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is
certainly not a portal. That's
an *english* main page, with links to other
languages. Sorry, but I like
words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Is this type of question designed to make me sound as if I had absolutely no idea what I am talking about, or not worth listening because not using the best word, or designed to slow down any thinking process by drawing out a *detail*, or what ??
If such is your concern, explain *yourself* what *you* think is a portal, or better, explain what should be www.wikipedia.org page to your opinion.
There's a good description of what makes a portal on the page http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal. We probably don't want to implement all of the features mentioned in the article but then again we should implement most of them if we are going to the length of calling http://www.wikipedia.org it a portal.
Cheers
Derek
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But, from a conceptual point of view, that is
certainly not a portal. That's
an *english* main page, with links to other
languages. Sorry, but I like
words to be used in their context.
What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet buzzword from about 1997)
Is this type of question designed to make me sound as if I had absolutely no idea what I am talking about
No. Its the sort of question designed to make me sound as if I had absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what a "portal" is in this context.
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
Anthere wrote:
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
But they seem plenty prominent enough.
Right. That suits me enough personnaly, so I won't proceed any further. But, from a conceptual point of view, that is certainly not a portal. That's an *english* main page, with links to other languages. Sorry, but I like words to be used in their context.
français
It would require the c cédille (ç) to be coded properly in any langage though
Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Magnus Manske magnus.manske@epost.de writes:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
I think you mean GB / US / AUS / NZ / CAN ... well, you get the picture. Either the Flag of St. George (yuck), or nothing, I'd say.
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Magnus Manske magnus.manske@epost.de writes:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about
little flags for the different
languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for
en.wikipedia.com...
I think you mean GB / US / AUS / NZ / CAN ... well, you get the picture. Either the Flag of St. George (yuck), or nothing, I'd say.
No flags, please. Language and nationality are not interchangable.
Stephen
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
"Magnus Manske" skribis:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/flags.html
Paul
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
And Australian. And, uh, all the other countries that speak english.
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
And Australian. And, uh, all the other countries that speak english.
I don't like flags, and I guess many others also don't like them. If we really need some kind picture to represent a language, then please let's coose an image of a famous person who used this language to produce something important/famous/extraordinary/... (and who could represent our NPOV somehow).
I don't know if we really need images, but if so than please not flags.
Kurt
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't appear on <intlwiki-l>. Or maybe it was posted separately; I'm not sure.]
Magnus Manske wrote:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
I say that we should use the English flag, since the English language is named after England. I'm American, never been to England, but this doesn't bother me.
And note that the English flag is *not* the Union Jack. It's *half* of that, the flag of Saint George.
Will this sort of thing work for every language that doesn't (like Esperanto) have its own flag?
-- Toby
At 03:11 PM 10/12/02 -0700, Toby wrote:
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't appear on <intlwiki-l>. Or maybe it was posted separately; I'm not sure.]
Magnus Manske wrote:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
I say that we should use the English flag, since the English language is named after England. I'm American, never been to England, but this doesn't bother me.
And note that the English flag is *not* the Union Jack. It's *half* of that, the flag of Saint George.
The problem is that most people won't recognize the English flag, which is rarely used outside of an international sports context, so it doesn't serve the purpose of "click here for the English version". I'm not British either (though I have been to England (and to Wales and Scotland)), but I'm used to clicking on the UK flag to get English Web pages, not the English flag.
Of course, by sheer numbers it would properly be the flag of India, which I suspect would confuse most non-Indians.
"Toby Bartels" skribis:
Magnus Manske wrote:
When writing on Phase II, I was thinking about little flags for the different languages. We'd just need a merged GB/US flag for en.wikipedia.com...
I say that we should use the English flag, since the English language is named after England. I'm American, never been to England, but this doesn't bother me.
And note that the English flag is *not* the Union Jack. It's *half* of that, the flag of Saint George.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-eng.html
[en] (a) How many of the people interested in the english pages knows that this is the flag of England?
(b) Who will associate this flag with the english language?
I think, this is even more discriminating than only using the flag of the United Kingdom.
Will this sort of thing work for every language that doesn't (like Esperanto) have its own flag?
I think at all that country-flags for representing languages is a bad idea - even if the language is named after a country.
Here again the arguments: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/flags.html
Paul
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't appear on <intl-wiki>. Or perhaps it appeared separately; I'm not sure.]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia.
? Look again. When I get to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and I'm logged out, I see, very large and near the top: Danish, German, Esperanto, Spanish, French, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese.
But not Latin, Frisian, ....
It seems very prominent to me already. It seems sensible to me that those links should be translated to Espanol, Deutsche, etc. (But not by me, since I don't even know what "French" is in French. Francais?)
"Español", "Deutsch", "Français".
But they seem plenty prominent enough.
They don't seem at all prominent to me. They're in with a bunch of header material that my eye naturally ignores; I'm drawn to the beginning of paragraphed text further down.
-- Toby
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 12:25, Anthere wrote:
1)There's a need for a portal page stating the existence of all the wikis, a few infos about each, and a direct link to each. This page should be at wikipedia.org.
Unfortunately, the portal page is just about the most bankrupt concept possible in terms of usability, and online, usability is just about all you've got. The harm of adding one more click to users, both new and old, is measurable and huge.
One more click *only once* does not look like *huge* to me. Only once. And one more login *only once* even less.
If you take a look at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3APopularpages
you see the problem of the extra click. The front page has more than 20 times as many view as the next most popular pages. Clickthroughs generally follow [[Zipf's law]] (it's even used as an example!).
www.wikipedia.org already has all the portalness it needs in its two paragraphs of intro. The article count should probably count all the languages, but that's about it.
Maybe there is a confusion here. Right now, the www.wikipedia.org is the english wikipedia. Right now, on the actual www.wikipedia.org, there is *little way* a user not fluent in english, will have the idea to scroll and look everywhere, down to the bottom of the page, inside a crowded list of international links, to find the link to a latin wikipedia. Right now, the www.wikipedia.org introduction text is entirely in english.
Yes. The other language links need to be in their own languages, not in the English versions of the languages. Jimmy: the translations are on the bottom of the home page.
I've added the rest of the languages up top.
Right now the different language versions of WP are separate wikis; that should not be the permanent case. And that is what should be focused on here.
I would personnaly highly prefer interlinguage links are improved, before any portal page.
I agree.
The Cunctator wrote:
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 12:25, Anthere wrote:
One more click *only once* does not look like *huge* to me. Only once. And one more login *only once* even less.
If you take a look at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3APopularpages
you see the problem of the extra click. The front page has more than 20 times as many view as the next most popular pages. Clickthroughs generally follow [[Zipf's law]] (it's even used as an example!).
Maybe that could be compensated by placing a big (=central, visible) search function on top of the"www" main page, with a dropdown box for the different languages, with the browser-preferred language pre-selected. I guess that's what the random bypasser (the one-click guy;) wants from an encyclopedia: search for some topic. People who are interested in the project itself won't mind an additional click, IMHO.
Magnus
Probably the simplest thing is to add one little sentence to the beginning of the description - The wikipedia project encompasses many languages and countries. This is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE version. For other languages see: (and then a dropdown box with all the languages listed, so that people can choose which one they want and get automatically transferred to their chosen version.)
I know that the languages are already listed at the top and bottom of the page, but maybe this would make it more obvious that you had a free choice?
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't get sent to <intlwiki-l>. Or perhaps it was sent separately; I'm not sure.]
The Cunctator wrote in last part:
By definition doing "what is fair and equal" for groups with unequal representation is being politically correct.
O, is *that* what it means? I've always wondered.
The Wikipedia entry [[political correctness]] is pretty good.
Well, if you think so, then perhaps you should read it. Because it (at least on [[en:]]) doesn't say what you just said.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org