The following is a point that I raised with Angela as part of my attempt to deal with what I see as the ongoing problem of Votes for Deletion. I would like to seek constructive solutions to that.
When it comes to deletions my first rule would always be to resolve the benefit of the doubt in favour of keeping. Secondly I would put delete only when an article falls squarely into a specified category. The first two (and there would be others) clear categories would be (a) Obvious bad-faith nonsens such as infantile comments, alphabet soup and insults (the kind we all know when we see it), and (b) Clear tyupographical errors in an article title
The general class of articles that I want to consider now is that of those articles that belong in another member project of the Wikimedia family. Such an article will likely have valuable information, but the contributor has just put it in the wrong place. That group has a number of number of possible sub-classes:
1. dictionary type entries; (They belong in Wiktionary) 2. foreign language entries: (They belong in the Wiktionary for the relevant language) 3. entire quoted books; (They belong in Wikibooks) 4. memorials; (They belong in what is now the 9/11 Memorial, which could be expanded to cover forgetable victims of other disasters)
One observation that I have about the current listing of things to be transferred to Wiktionary is that it is somewhat useless where it is. A person that devotes his entire Wiki time to work on Wiktionary may not see it and may not even know that it's there. To solve this I would propose a Transwiki: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transwiki:&action=edit namespace on all projects. I first thought of using the word "Transfer" for this, but decided that a coined word would avoid any possible ambiguities. Currently Thou http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou is the first entry on Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary . To deal with this I would create an article in Wiktionary called [[Transwiki:Thou]] to which everything that is now in Thou http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou could be copied as is. A Wiktionarian who is looking for something to do could then work at co-ordinating that article with what really should be on Wiktionary according to Wiktionary rules. Once that is done the Transwiki article could be deleted.
Since this idea can be applied to transfers between any two projects, I would suggest that the name "Transwiki" be applied uniformly across all projects. This is important for foreign language entries That way a worker in the source project will know exactly where to put something in the target project without knowing anything about the target language.
Ec
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:10AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
- dictionary type entries; (They belong in Wiktionary)
Do we have wiktionary in foreign languages? What should foreigners (to english) do with dictionary entries now?
- entire quoted books; (They belong in Wikibooks)
A user started to enter his own fictions and writings in the .hu.wikipedia. Right now I can only send him to... anywhere else, and delete the "articles". Do they belong to Wikibooks? Essays, novels, any kind of "fictional facts" and other nonsense?
Since this idea can be applied to transfers between any two projects, I
Do you mean all the article history should be transferred, or just the text put on hold in the namespace?
grin
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:10AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
- dictionary type entries; (They belong in Wiktionary)
Do we have wiktionary in foreign languages? What should foreigners (to english) do with dictionary entries now?
Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries, so far only the English version exists. If you have somebody who likes writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-) That being said, if someone wants to write up English definitions for Hungarian words that would go on the English Wiktionary. Wiktionary is in utf-8 so it can handle fully accented Hungarian.
- entire quoted books; (They belong in Wikibooks)
A user started to enter his own fictions and writings in the .hu.wikipedia. Right now I can only send him to... anywhere else, and delete the "articles". Do they belong to Wikibooks? Essays, novels, any kind of "fictional facts" and other nonsense?
My opinion is that works of original fiction don't belong in any of these, but if the Hungarian Wikipedians decide a different policy that's their choice, You're not going to get a lot of objections from those of us who don't understand a word of Hungarian
Since this idea can be applied to transfers between any two projects, I
Do you mean all the article history should be transferred, or just the text put on hold in the namespace?
Copying the talk pages would be a good idea, and the history may be helpful for understanding what the author was thinking about. There is a potential history problem if we don't have uniform registration across all projects. Also the Transwiki pages would all be temporary pages , so their history would disappear when the work is done.
Ec
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries, so far only the English version exists. If you have somebody who likes writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a year...
That being said, if someone wants to write up English definitions for Hungarian words that would go on the English Wiktionary.
Sure. (To be honest, I don't really grasp the idea, since it's pretty time consuming to update a definition. For example there's a word for "Dog", and there are 23 pages describing dog in 23 other languages. Then I come, and want to share Hungarian Dog, so I have to edit *24* pages to insert Dog everywhere. I know, it's a wiki not a database, but still, prevents me from wanting to do anything serious there.)
- entire quoted books; (They belong in Wikibooks)
A user started to enter his own fictions and writings in the .hu.wikipedia. Right now I can only send him to... anywhere else, and delete the "articles". Do they belong to Wikibooks? Essays, novels, any kind of "fictional facts" and other nonsense?
My opinion is that works of original fiction don't belong in any of these, but if the Hungarian Wikipedians decide a different policy that's their choice, You're not going to get a lot of objections from those of us who don't understand a word of Hungarian
My opinion is that Wikipedia is not a short story publisher, and he can go to any free web provider or freeform-wiki to publish these. Thanks for the opinion. :)
grin
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries, so far only the English version exists. If you have somebody who likes writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a year...
All the wikis start small. :-) Once the opportunity is presented, some people will just naturally feel more comfortable working on a dictionary that on encyclopedia. 46 articles is a good start, but it should take a *lot* less than a year to get there. The transwiki concept would work just as well for moving an article from hu.wikipedia to hu.wiktionary as it does in English. The message to people changes. It is no longer, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we're deleting your work." It becomes, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but we respect your effort and have a better place for your good work in Wiktionary."
That being said, if someone wants to write up English definitions for Hungarian words that would go on the English Wiktionary.
Sure. (To be honest, I don't really grasp the idea, since it's pretty time consuming to update a definition. For example there's a word for "Dog", and there are 23 pages describing dog in 23 other languages. Then I come, and want to share Hungarian Dog, so I have to edit *24* pages to insert Dog everywhere. I know, it's a wiki not a database, but still, prevents me from wanting to do anything serious there.)
The en:wiktionary currently show a translation for "dog" into 72 other languages. This is far more than for most words. It also gives an English meaning for the Dutch word "dog". There is a brief entry for "kutya" showing it as the Hungarian word for "dog". That entry also shows the translation of "kutya" into Dutch. I personally don't believe that the Dutch rendering should be on the "kutya" article, but it's not the sort of thing that I would spend a lot of time arguing about. Other Wiktionarians have been keen to develop an extensive system of cross-indexing, but have been less than diligent and focused on maintaining it.
I see three functions for the English Wiktionary: 1. Provide detailed definitions of English words in English for English speakers. 2. Provide translations of English words into an indefinite number of languages. 3. Provide entries for words in any foreign language for English speakers. Substitute the name of another language in that statement in all the places where "English" appears, and you have how, in a big picture, I would envision developments in other language Wiktionaries.
Wikimedia's volunteer environment is such that we will not cut your salary in half if you work on only 12 of 24 dog articles, and we won't triple it if you choose to work on 72 either. Effectively, you are limited in the number of meaningful contributions that you can make by the bumber of languages that you understand. Some people have a passion for providing dictionary definitions of a word in as many languages as they can, but they can't convince me that there is any depth to their understanding of any of those languages. Briefly, you are limited in what you can do by the time you have available, and there is never any obligation to do more than that. Providing the perfectionist's depth across a large breadth of languages is often simply impossible.
Ec
(original French version at the buttom of this mail)
Hello all,
This week we began a new Community project on Francophone Wikipedia: the article of the week. It is a matter of proposing to all the wikipadians to jointly work during one week on an article they chose. The goal is double: develop Community work and harmony between the editors, and to create an article of quality which can be used as model for promotion. Our first test is more than conclusive that almost all French wikipedians took part has this first article of the week (the [Lorraine]’ region) and that after four days we already obtained a rather complete article on the subject (although it remains much has to write).
There aren’t any strict criteria to be able to propose an article as article of the week, in fact the wikipedians judge relevance of the proposals by their votes. However, a good article of the week can be defined as an article:
- empty or stub,
- not controversial,
- not too technical,
- whose subject is enough vast to make it possible to each one to add contents,
- coming from the pages [Ask an article], [Popular articles] or coming from [Main page].
I not sure this concept is easily adaptable to Anglophone Wikipedia because of its size and the great number of editors, but I think that it can be interesting for other Wikipedia.
FAQ:
- Why only one article per week and not several?
The goal is to propose to wikipedians to work jointly on one article. If
there were several articles, there is great chance that each one takes part only on article which have favourite subject.
- Why a week whereas in one day we had already obtained a good article?
The goal is not to create a great number of good articles, but make take
part a maximum number of people on one article and to succeed has as realised as possible article. For example, certain people of Francophone Wikipedia took part in the article only several days after the beginning.
Article of the week: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Article_de_la_semaine (French)
Rules, votes and discussions: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%E9dia:Article_de_la_semaine (French)
Aoineko
--------------------------------------------
Bonjour à tous,
Cette semaine nous avons commencé un nouveau projet communautaire sur le Wikipédia francophone : l'article de la semaine.
Il s'agit de proposer à tout les wikipédiens de travailler main dans la main pendant une semaine sur un article qu'ils ont choisi. Le but est double : développer le travail communautaire et l'entente entre les éditeurs, et aboutir a la création d'article de qualité qui peuvent servir de model pour la promotion.
Notre premier essai est plus que concluant puisse que la quasi-totalité des wikipédiens ont participé a ce premier article de la semaine (la région [Lorraine]) et qu'après quatre jours nous avons déjà obtenu un article assez complet sur le sujet (bien qu'il reste encore beaucoup a écrire).
Il n'existe aucuns critères stricts pour pouvoir proposer un article comme article de la semaine, ce sont les wikipédiens qui jugent de la pertinence des propositions par leurs votes. Cependant, un bon article de la semaine peut être défini comme un article :
- vide ou à l'état d'ébauche,
- non controversé,
- pas trop technique,
- dont le sujet est assez vaste pour offrir à chacun la possibilité d'ajouter du contenu,
- provenant des pages [demander un article], [articles les plus demandée] ou encore provenant de la [page d'accueil].
Je ne suis pas sur que ce concept soit facilement adaptable au Wikipédia anglophone de part sa taille et le grand nombre d'éditeurs, mais je pense qu'il peut être intéressant pour les autres Wikipédia.
FAQ :
- Pourquoi un seul article par semaine et non pas plusieurs ?
Le but et de proposer aux wikipédiens de travailler main dans la main sur
un article. Si il y avait plusieurs articles, il y a de grande chance que chacun ne participe qu'a l'article dont le sujet lui tiens le plus a cœur.
- Pourquoi une semaine alors qu'en un jour nous avions déjà obtenu un bon article ?
Le but n'est pas de créer un grand nombre de bons articles, mais bien de
faire participer un maximum de gens sur cet article et d'aboutir a un article le plus abouti possible. Par exemple, certaines personnes du Wikipédia francophone n'ont participé à l'article que plusieurs jours après le début.
Article de la semaine : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Article_de_la_semaine
Règles, votes et discussions : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%E9dia:Article_de_la_semaine
Aoineko
Ec, your mails are little dissertations itself. :-)
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:45:52AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries, so far only the English version exists. If you have somebody who likes writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a year...
All the wikis start small. :-) Once the opportunity is presented, some people will just naturally feel more comfortable working on a dictionary
[...]
The basic question is whether it could be started now, because there are already entries, and that whether there is a planned solution for the language-crisscrossing.
Like, um, let me conjure some ideas,
An article: Dog: blah [[xl:en:Dog]] (xl = cross language template insert, en = use english word as index)
Would render on english: Dog: blah * German: Hound * Hungarian: kutya ...
Would render on hungarian: Dog: blah * Német: Hound * Magyar: kutya ...
where the page [[tpl:en:Dog]] would say: * [[de:Hound]] * [[hu:kutya]]
(and [[tpl:hu:kutya]] is just a redirect/symlink to [[tpl:en:Dog]]).
Just brainstorming.
The en:wiktionary currently show a translation for "dog" into 72 other languages. This is far more than for most words. It also gives an English meaning for the Dutch word "dog". There is a brief entry for "kutya" showing it as the Hungarian word for "dog". That entry also shows the translation of "kutya" into Dutch. I personally don't believe that the Dutch rendering should be on the "kutya" article,
To me it looks logical to have redirect [[kutya]] to [[dog]], and [[dog]] informing us that "kutya" is the hungarian equivalent.
I see three functions for the LOCAL Wiktionary:
- Provide detailed definitions of LOCAL words in LOCAL lang for
LOCAL speakers. 2. Provide translations of LOCAL words into an indefinite number of languages.
(my template thingy above helps that.)
- Provide entries for words in any foreign language for LOCAL
speakers.
(redirects help that.)
I changed it to LOCAL, so, yes, basically that makes sense.
understanding of any of those languages. Briefly, you are limited in what you can do by the time you have available, and there is never any obligation to do more than that. Providing the perfectionist's depth across a large breadth of languages is often simply impossible.
Technical help may make it consume less labour. Maybe.
grin
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:14:29PM +0100, Peter Gervai wrote:
- German: Hound
It's Hund
ciao, tom
Peter Gervai wrote:
Ec, your mails are little dissertations itself. :-)
I don't know if that's good or bad. People don't like reading long eMails, but I like to cover many possibilities. :-)
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:45:52AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries, so far only the English version exists. If you have somebody who likes writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a year...
All the wikis start small. :-) Once the opportunity is presented, some people will just naturally feel more comfortable working on a dictionary
[...]
The basic question is whether it could be started now, because there are already entries, and that whether there is a planned solution for the language-crisscrossing.
Of course it should. Since the software for hu:wikipedia is already in place, most of it will likely remain the same for hu:wiktionary. It would surprise me if more than 10% would need changing.
In practical terms the language-crisscrossing issues may be imposible to solve as long as Wiktionary only exists in one language. I would guessed that the second wiktionary would be in a language that is more accessible to English readers (French, German, Spanish etc.) Hungarian will be full of wonderful challenges for us; at least it uses Latin script. :-)
Like, um, let me conjure some ideas,
An article: Dog: blah [[xl:en:Dog]] (xl = cross language template insert, en = use english word as index)
Would render on english: Dog: blah
- German: Hund
- Hungarian: kutya
...
Would render on hungarian: Dog: blah
- Net: Hund
- Magyar: kutya
...
This is exactly what would happen.
where the page [[tpl:en:Dog]] would say:
- [[de:Hound]]
- [[hu:kutya]]
(and [[tpl:hu:kutya]] is just a redirect/symlink to [[tpl:en:Dog]]).
This seems to suggest a completely separate article that serves as a kind of server for the concept. My guess is that it wouldn't work, and that it probably is not needed ... but I could be wrong.
Just brainstorming.
Let's hope there is enough (en)lightening for people to see. :-)
The en:wiktionary currently show a translation for "dog" into 72 other languages. This is far more than for most words. It also gives an English meaning for the Dutch word "dog". There is a brief entry for "kutya" showing it as the Hungarian word for "dog". That entry also shows the translation of "kutya" into Dutch. I personally don't believe that the Dutch rendering should be on the "kutya" article,
To me it looks logical to have redirect [[kutya]] to [[dog]], and [[dog]] informing us that "kutya" is the hungarian equivalent.
Redirects may only be useful in an environment of very few languages, or with words that have a clear one-to-one corelation. Each language has complexities of its own. That's why I recommend that the primary task of each language Wiktionary should be to develop itself for the benefit of people who speak that language. There is a danger in being too naïve about the nature of translation. That's why machine translations can so often make us laugh, or you can tell when somebody used a dictionary too much to produce a translation.
I see three functions for the LOCAL Wiktionary:
- Provide detailed definitions of LOCAL words in LOCAL lang for
LOCAL speakers. 2. Provide translations of LOCAL words into an indefinite number of languages.
(my template thingy above helps that.)
- Provide entries for words in any foreign language for LOCAL
speakers.
(redirects help that.)
What makes redirects unusable is that a same word may be used in several languages. Hund is also used in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian but without the capital letter. Several slavic languages use "pes" (which would mean "foot" in Latin); several other languages use "can" which as a noun in English may mean a tin for storing cooked vegetables.
I changed it to LOCAL, so, yes, basically that makes sense.
OK
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org