[[:en:WP:100K]] is a page about Danny's wild idea to have 100,000 featured-quality articles on en: in a year or so.
Featured articles from other language Wikipedias may be a marvellous source for quality material.
If you write well in both English and the other language, you may be able to do very well for en: by going through the other language's featured articles and bringing the en: article up to scratch.
(And for the other Wikipedia by doing it the other way.)
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this idea?
- d.
Above all: Do not ease the requirements of the featured articles, just to have more of them.
/Andreas
On 9/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
[[:en:WP:100K]] is a page about Danny's wild idea to have 100,000 featured-quality articles on en: in a year or so.
Featured articles from other language Wikipedias may be a marvellous source for quality material.
If you write well in both English and the other language, you may be able to do very well for en: by going through the other language's featured articles and bringing the en: article up to scratch.
(And for the other Wikipedia by doing it the other way.)
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this idea?
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 21/09/06, Andreas Vilén andreas.vilen@gmail.com wrote:
Above all: Do not ease the requirements of the featured articles, just to have more of them.
There's a question of the FAC process on en:, though - it's deliberately raised its requirements with time because the regulars want to keep it special, for the very best of the best. e.g. articles are seriously nominated for defeaturing for reasons such as not fitting current FAC referencing fashions. Which is fine for them, but less than useful for any comparison of how we're doing.
The listed feature article criteria haven't changed.
- d.
On 9/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/06, Andreas Vilén andreas.vilen@gmail.com wrote:
Above all: Do not ease the requirements of the featured articles, just to have more of them.
There's a question of the FAC process on en:, though - it's deliberately raised its requirements with time because the regulars want to keep it special, for the very best of the best. e.g. articles are seriously nominated for defeaturing for reasons such as not fitting current FAC referencing fashions. Which is fine for them, but less than useful for any comparison of how we're doing.
I'd like to second this - don't relax requirements whatsoever.
But don't be afraid to reform the process. The meaning of FA should not be to be one of 365 produced each year to show up on the front page.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 21/09/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to second this - don't relax requirements whatsoever.
Of course, it would make the goal silly to do so. I'm putting [[WP:100K]] as working to the Featured Article criteria ...
But don't be afraid to reform the process. The meaning of FA should not be to be one of 365 produced each year to show up on the front page.
... but am explicitly not assuming the current FA process.
[[WP:100K]] seems to have a nascent process outlined:
1. Check various sources for better-than-average articles. (FA, GA, A-rated by a project, collaboration-of-the-week, etc.) 2. Rate these per the FAC. I expect FAs and probably GAs will get an automatic pass to save effort.
An idea I have for step 2 is: no self-nominations. I am *suspecting* self-nominations are why FA has to explicitly say "don't take it personally" - they've set up an environment almost designed to make it personal.
Now then, for the bilinguals ... does translating FAs from one project to another sound like something that would arouse your interest at all?
[cc: back to wikien-l]
- d.
Let's call a spade a spade. Raul654 calls himself whatever he calls himself whilst running FA in en:wp. Great - I'm glad some"one" does it. But the project requires much much more than just one person's work. That is the whole point. One person isn't going to manage 100K top-notch articles. We are pushing the quality up across the board and fulfilling Jimbo's challenge at WM06 this year - less about new articles - more about better articles.
/me would love a Special:RandomFA button as well....with 100K entries to wheel around.
On 9/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to second this - don't relax requirements whatsoever.
Of course, it would make the goal silly to do so. I'm putting [[WP:100K]] as working to the Featured Article criteria ...
But don't be afraid to reform the process. The meaning of FA should not be to be one of 365 produced each year to show up on the front page.
... but am explicitly not assuming the current FA process.
[[WP:100K]] seems to have a nascent process outlined:
- Check various sources for better-than-average articles. (FA, GA,
A-rated by a project, collaboration-of-the-week, etc.) 2. Rate these per the FAC. I expect FAs and probably GAs will get an automatic pass to save effort.
An idea I have for step 2 is: no self-nominations. I am *suspecting* self-nominations are why FA has to explicitly say "don't take it personally" - they've set up an environment almost designed to make it personal.
Now then, for the bilinguals ... does translating FAs from one project to another sound like something that would arouse your interest at all?
[cc: back to wikien-l]
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 21/09/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Let's call a spade a spade. Raul654 calls himself whatever he calls himself whilst running FA in en:wp. Great - I'm glad some"one" does it. But the project requires much much more than just one person's work. That is the whole point. One person isn't going to manage 100K top-notch articles. We are pushing the quality up across the board and fulfilling Jimbo's challenge at WM06 this year - less about new articles - more about better articles.
I'm certainly not going to knock Raul's work managing that particular herd of cats - I spent a lot of time participating in FAC over 2004 and 2005, and a Featured Articles *Dictator* who doesn't take crap is what the job as it stands needs and he does it well.
(That it needs a dictator is somewhat worrying, and that it gets personal is also somewhat worrying, but those are different questions.)
But en:WP:FAC can't scale because it's based on an individual review process by an ad-hoc committee, and a committee can't possibly scale. So we can't assume the present FAC process.
However, the standards set by FA are as exemplary for Wikipedia as they aim to be.
- d.
Hi!
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this idea?
IMHO we mostly already do it. EN.wiki is the largest knowledge base available on the net, so it's absolutely natural for multilingual people to go there and use it. And once you are there it's also natural to check and correct the info, add missing bits etc.
Bèrto
On 21/09/06, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this idea?
IMHO we mostly already do it. EN.wiki is the largest knowledge base available on the net, so it's absolutely natural for multilingual people to go there and use it. And once you are there it's also natural to check and correct the info, add missing bits etc.
In that case, could you (and anyone else reading) please do an experiment for me? Pick a featured article on a Wikipedia not in English; translate it to as high a quality article on en: as you can; and tell us how long it takes for each part of the process. This will be useful in seeing how many man-hours we would need.
- d.
Hi!
Okay, I'll do it next week. Just bear in mind that I'm used to do it, and that translating from a romance language into another will always be quicker than (say) from chinese to en, or from RU to EN. It's the shape of the phrases that it's already close enough since the very start.
Bèrto
----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Кому: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Отправлено: 21 сентября 2006 г. 16:14 Тема: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [[WP:100K]] - who here writes well in Englishandanother language?
On 21/09/06, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this
idea?
IMHO we mostly already do it. EN.wiki is the largest knowledge base available on the net, so it's absolutely natural for multilingual people
to
go there and use it. And once you are there it's also natural to check
and
correct the info, add missing bits etc.
In that case, could you (and anyone else reading) please do an experiment for me? Pick a featured article on a Wikipedia not in English; translate it to as high a quality article on en: as you can; and tell us how long it takes for each part of the process. This will be useful in seeing how many man-hours we would need.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi, please consider also Jeff's machine translation way to do this - if things go correctly we all can have less work with better effects. The thing is: we need the terminology + we need to go very much into detail when it comes to determine which domain a text is in (general, historical, technical, chimical etc. just to name some) to get better results.
We will very likely have such a tool for OmegaT (one that detemines the domain a text belongs to) - so if it works there it will work also for other software.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Machine_translation_for_small_Wikipedias
I don't know if Wikitrans creates problems to translate the other way round - from other languages to English, if there are not too many issues it would make sense to consider it. Otherwise or additionally I would consider to use OmegaT as CAT-Tool since you will be able to exchange the translation memories + will have a direct connection to WiktionaryZ (in future - I have no exact time frame on the last feature now). The programming of a WikiRead WikiWrite feature for OmegaT is already on its way and will be a question of .... have to ask ... I need it for a project at the beginning of October - so hopefully we will have it ready by that date.
Anyway: there will be an OmegaT-how-to meeting on skypecast next week. Who is interested can of course participate: it's free. I don't know the exact time frame now since I have to co-ordinate the translators working on the project. Anyway it would be interesting to know who wants to attend such a online course. So I created a page on my wiki for people who want to let me know (http://wordsandmore.org/index.php?title=Wordsandmore:OmegaT_online_courses ). I am doing this there, because it interesses not only people from the wikimedia foundation. The course will be held for a group of 10 translators who will need to work with the tool in a project, and of course everyone is welcome).
Futher info about OmegaT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmegaT
Probably I will write another crosspost to several lists when I have the date and time set.
Sorry, have to go now :-)
Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
I don't like to do so, but obviously I am the first one to interrupt you, lessen your enthusiasm and get kind of realistic.
Yes, of course it's important to improve quality, espacially now when en: has reached an unbelievable high number of articles, but I don't think you'll reach 100k of FAs without easing the requirements for an article to be featured, even if you go for it for three years. Let's explain:
English WP has now exactly 1118 featured articles on 1,395,220 total articles which means that there is 0.0008 FA on one "normal" article (=NA), or, better, 8 FA on 10,000 NA. On de, we have 869 FAs on 469,065 total, what is somerwhere around 0,19% or 1,8 FA on 1,000 NA. If we take an average of these numbers (which is not realistic, I know), we'll have 0,135% of FA compared with total articles on en and de. Taking together the 16 biggest wps (according to [[en:Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics]]) there would be about 4 million total articles. If you take our FA-average of 0,135% FA on total article number, there are at the moment 5,400 (!!) FA _in total_ on _all_ Wikipedias, including those 1118 already existing on en. This means you would have to write about 96,000 FAs during only 365 days - that's impossible, imagine how long it took you to get just these 1118... [1]
So far on numbers, you see, that's kinda irrealistic to set such a goal, because of the huge amount of articles needed to be created from the beginning. And that's not the only argument: As already said, for non-native speakers, it takes lots of more time to write an really excellent article in a foreign language so they probably would thing "what the hell to to with en.wp, I'll better invest my time on improving articles on my "home"-wp, that'll be more efficient, it's less depressing, it's easier for me" - I think (also because I know what I can do and what I can't) you'll not get real support from other language wps except of people who are used to write on en: only.
Third, I think that - as on de: - probably many of the really active users who write FAs have other jobs like vandalfighting which have do be done also. People who are capable of writing a really good wp article have to be familiar with regulations, with the community, they have to be used to write long articles - especially the first two characteristics qualify an user for adminship (I doubt that this is completely different on de: and en:...). One cannot take the risk of a completely destroyed (yes!) Wikipedia just to have another FA, so admins can't give all their time on the FA project, and the many RC patrollers either.
Well, to get to an end: I think, this big aim number is too big. It's just depressing and nothing else to work on the 5,000th FA in july and there is just another 6 months to complete further 95,000 articles. If a smaller number like, probably, 10,000 or even just 5,000 was set, it would be easier to reach and a better motivation for all writers.
Nevertheless, if [[Wikipedia:Featured Articles]] shows a number higher than 50,000 on this time in 2007, I'd oblige me to write at least 50 FAs for en: until december '08 ;)
rdb
[1] To get some more numbers: To create 96,000 FA in 365 days means 263 FA per day. 50 hours per FA - 13,150 hours of work per day. A day has 24 hours - you'd need about 550 editors per day working on FA. But - don't forget - they'd have to work 24/7 per one year ;)
David Gerard schrieb:
[[:en:WP:100K]] is a page about Danny's wild idea to have 100,000 featured-quality articles on en: in a year or so.
Featured articles from other language Wikipedias may be a marvellous source for quality material.
If you write well in both English and the other language, you may be able to do very well for en: by going through the other language's featured articles and bringing the en: article up to scratch.
(And for the other Wikipedia by doing it the other way.)
How do those of you who write well in two languages feel about this idea?
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 21/09/06, Raphael Wiegand rdb_wikipedia@gmx.de wrote:
Yes, of course it's important to improve quality, espacially now when en: has reached an unbelievable high number of articles, but I don't think you'll reach 100k of FAs without easing the requirements for an article to be featured, even if you go for it for three years. Let's explain: English WP has now exactly 1118 featured articles on 1,395,220 total
The current FAC process is known not to scale and is not expected to scale, which is why I'm not assuming it. Also, its requirements have been deliberately tightened - the Featured Article Criteria haven't changed, but the FA process's expectations have been ramped *way* up specifically to keep the numbers down.
(This is about the fourth time I've said this in this thread, isn't it?)
- d.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org