Hoi, To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.
When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in nature. .
Thanks, GerardM
You put it very nicely Gerard.
I don't particularly agree about the requirements, but I do agree with everything else you said - an active Wikipedia is an active Wikipedia, whether it's being written in a language with 10 speakers or one with 1 billion.
Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).
I could build a complex mathematical model, but I have the feeling that a Wikipedia in a language with 1000 speakers has just as much growth potential as a Wikipedia in a language with 1 million speakers, although one may grow faster than the other, the latter will never reach a size that the former cannot achieve as well.
Mark
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:22:07 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.
When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in nature. .
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:28:42 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You put it very nicely Gerard.
I don't particularly agree about the requirements, but I do agree with everything else you said - an active Wikipedia is an active Wikipedia, whether it's being written in a language with 10 speakers or one with 1 billion.
Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).
*ahem*
I could build a complex mathematical model, but I have the feeling that a Wikipedia in a language with 1000 speakers has just as much growth potential as a Wikipedia in a language with 1 million speakers, although one may grow faster than the other, the latter will never reach a size that the former cannot achieve as well.
Mark
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:22:07 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.
When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in nature. .
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
På 11. mar. 2005 kl. 00:28 skrev Mark Williamson:
Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).
Acually, after a couple of minutes of research i found the the wikipedia with best article pr. speaker ratio. Iceland, with 7 articles pr 1000 inhabitant. Followed closely by no, dk and fi with around 4 articles pr. 1000 inhabitant
And then follows faroese with around 3 articles pr inhabitant.
mvh. Lars Alvik
Although it doesn't make for much of a statistical difference, at least not in rank, I feel I should note that you are inaccurately comparing the number of inhabitants of a country with articles, rather than the number of speakers of a language. For many languages, there is a huge population abroad, and that might make a significant difference.
Mark
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:33:36 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 11. mar. 2005 kl. 00:28 skrev Mark Williamson:
Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).
Acually, after a couple of minutes of research i found the the wikipedia with best article pr. speaker ratio. Iceland, with 7 articles pr 1000 inhabitant. Followed closely by no, dk and fi with around 4 articles pr. 1000 inhabitant
And then follows faroese with around 3 articles pr inhabitant.
mvh. Lars Alvik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gerard Meijssen ti 2005/3/10 EP 05:22 sia-kong:
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture.
I'd like to interpret the part about "reflecting a culture" along a specific line: "reflecting the encyclopedia needs of the particular readership." For example, the English article on "area" would surely mention the SI units but also Imperial units now outdated in many places. The equivalent Southern Min article would also deal at length with the SI units but be less interested in Imperial units. It might note, for example, the decline of their use in most Anglo-influenced countries and ex-colonies -- but without presenting a lengthy and largely irrelevant table on interconversions. It would also mention which empire we are talking about when we say "the Imperial units" (the Mongolians?). More to the point it would also mention other types of units used in Southern Min-speaking regions, notably the "kah" (used in Taiwan) and the "pheng" (Taiwan and some other places). Both of these would be unlikely to be mentioned at all in the English article (whose editors are not likely to be familiar with such local units). (Of course now that I have mentioned them, someone might well add them in English, but maybe not.) In short we always emphasize certain facets of knowledge and de-emphasize others, and cultural considerations are among the criteria used to decide which way to go. More radically, one might even argue that cultural factors limit the range of what we know we can emphasize or de-emphasize.
One reason why the idea of "One English Encyclopedia to Rule Them All" (a la Tokien) is deeply flawed.
I think we should clarify something so we don't get people's knickers in a knot over it: what you say about the article on area not including more than passing mention of imperial units, does /not/ mean there could not be a separate article about them.
Would that be "eng-chè"?
Mark
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:46:44 -0500, Henry Tan-Tenn share2002nov@lomaji.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen ti 2005/3/10 EP 05:22 sia-kong:
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture.
I'd like to interpret the part about "reflecting a culture" along a specific line: "reflecting the encyclopedia needs of the particular readership." For example, the English article on "area" would surely mention the SI units but also Imperial units now outdated in many places. The equivalent Southern Min article would also deal at length with the SI units but be less interested in Imperial units. It might note, for example, the decline of their use in most Anglo-influenced countries and ex-colonies -- but without presenting a lengthy and largely irrelevant table on interconversions. It would also mention which empire we are talking about when we say "the Imperial units" (the Mongolians?). More to the point it would also mention other types of units used in Southern Min-speaking regions, notably the "kah" (used in Taiwan) and the "pheng" (Taiwan and some other places). Both of these would be unlikely to be mentioned at all in the English article (whose editors are not likely to be familiar with such local units). (Of course now that I have mentioned them, someone might well add them in English, but maybe not.) In short we always emphasize certain facets of knowledge and de-emphasize others, and cultural considerations are among the criteria used to decide which way to go. More radically, one might even argue that cultural factors limit the range of what we know we can emphasize or de-emphasize.
One reason why the idea of "One English Encyclopedia to Rule Them All" (a la Tokien) is deeply flawed.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson ti 2005/3/11 EP 08:58 sia-kong:
I think we should clarify something so we don't get people's knickers in a knot over it: what you say about the article on area not including more than passing mention of imperial units, does /not/ mean there could not be a separate article about them.
Theoretically we could have articles on anything and everything that has relevance to more than a few people in the world. But I am talking about actual practices: writing readable articles that avoid being overly verbose, lengthy, technical, pedantic, or represented in "pure mathetmatics" by assuming certain base knowledge, i.e. a specific readership. As far as I can see, all en: Featured Articles do so. And that means leaving out certain things not of interest or relevance to English speakers while retaining others. It would be a mistake to assume such well-written articles are necessarily universal in relevance or otherwise devoid of cultural assumptions as to be meaningful to other language speakers without all sorts of post-translation re-editing if not rewriting.
Would that be "eng-chè"?
I don't know. The topic has yet to be written down (or the article spun off) due to its lower relevance :)
Many Wikipedias have articles on topics that are culturally not very relevant.
The difference I'm talking about is that while information specific to the Avoirdupois system would be very minimal, there would be no reason not to have an entirely separate article about imperial units, corresponding roughly to [[:en:Imperial units]].
("eng-chè" was a guess based on the Mandarin term)
Mark
Henry Tan-Tenn ti 2005/3/11 21:27:03 -0500 siá-kóng:
Mark Williamson ti 2005/3/11 EP 08:58 sia-kong:
I think we should clarify something so we don't get people's knickers in a knot over it: what you say about the article on area not including more than passing mention of imperial units, does /not/ mean there could not be a separate article about them.
Theoretically we could have articles on anything and everything that has relevance to more than a few people in the world. But I am talking about actual practices: writing readable articles that avoid being overly verbose, lengthy, technical, pedantic, or represented in "pure mathetmatics" by assuming certain base knowledge, i.e. a specific readership. As far as I can see, all en: Featured Articles do so. And that means leaving out certain things not of interest or relevance to English speakers while retaining others. It would be a mistake to assume such well-written articles are necessarily universal in relevance or otherwise devoid of cultural assumptions as to be meaningful to other language speakers without all sorts of post-translation re-editing if not rewriting.
Would that be "eng-chè"?
I don't know. The topic has yet to be written down (or the article spun off) due to its lower relevance :)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org