English people and Japanese people also have the same universe, sun, planet, species, maths, logic, and universal history, yet we have separate Wikipedias for English and Japanese... By your logic, there shouldn't even be a zh: and we should only have one Wikipedia (which would probably be en: although I would much prefer is: or lb: or something of that sort)
You just missed my point. That's my fault not to express my point clearly. I mean we have the same vocabulary in most cases, we call things using the same name and same concepts in most cases, this is important, this means we enjoy the same language. The writing system is different, but most of them can be mapped each other.
So what? One could make the same arguments for not having separate Wikipedias for different languages.
You can't synchronize en: and jp: easily, because they are different language. But we can someday find a way to synchronize zh-cn: and zh-tw: easily. That is the different.
But the difference between the two isn't merely a "difference of character sets". Rather than converting on the level of the individual character which will inevitably produce poor results, it is nessecary to convert documents on the level of lexemes, for which one needs some sort of artificial intelligence capable of separating Chinese texts into individual lexemes before conversion. It is also nessecary to convert names of countries, special terminology
Did you not try the link I mentioned above? please visit http://fengzz.net/wiki/ to try. We are using some markup to solve this lexemes problem, and it works.
I agree with you that it is inconvenient for traditional Chinese users now. and I think the request on creating zh-tw version is proper. But we’d better have a good evaluation of different solutions before we decide. In my opinion, to keep a single version is benefit for future, and this is also the consensus of the Chinese Wikipedia community now. Maybe we should discuss this issue more.
English people and Japanese people also have the same universe, sun, planet, species, maths, logic, and universal history, yet we have separate Wikipedias for English and Japanese... By your logic, there shouldn't even be a zh: and we should only have one Wikipedia (which would probably be en: although I would much prefer is: or lb: or something of that sort)
You just missed my point. That's my fault not to express my point clearly. I mean we have the same vocabulary in most cases, we call things using the same name and same concepts in most cases, this is important, this means we enjoy the same language. The writing system is different, but most of them can be mapped each other.
So what? The writing system is different. That is what counts. A unified zh: might work, but only extremely clumsily.
So what? One could make the same arguments for not having separate Wikipedias for different languages.
You can't synchronize en: and jp: easily, because they are different language. But we can someday find a way to synchronize zh-cn: and zh-tw: easily. That is the different.
Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp: easily too. How is that relevant?
But the difference between the two isn't merely a "difference of character sets". Rather than converting on the level of the individual character which will inevitably produce poor results, it is nessecary to convert documents on the level of lexemes, for which one needs some sort of artificial intelligence capable of separating Chinese texts into individual lexemes before conversion. It is also nessecary to convert names of countries, special terminology
Did you not try the link I mentioned above? please visit http://fengzz.net/wiki/ to try. We are using some markup to solve this lexemes problem, and it works.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
I agree with you that it is inconvenient for traditional Chinese users now. and I think the request on creating zh-tw version is proper. But we'd better have a good evaluation of different solutions before we decide. In my opinion, to keep a single version is benefit for future, and this is also the consensus of the Chinese Wikipedia community now. Maybe we should discuss this issue more.
"Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote, because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users - including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.
rsy Jin Junshu/Mark
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:43:55 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp: easily too. How is that relevant?
You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
So what? That means we are solving the problem. While you're evading the problem, by simply splitting zh into zh-tw and zh-cn.
"Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote, because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users - including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.
This is not a comparable scenario.
Mainland Chinese does not live in Taiwan. They are not the people of Taiwan. Thus they have no right to decide whether Taiwan should do anything.
However, wikipedians from mainland does not only read SC exclusively. Most of them can read both TC and SC. That makes them eligible to vote on this TC/SC issue.
And why do you think mainlanders would vote in favor of unification? Is that because you have some prejudice against people from mainland? If this is so, this again shows you that you don't understand the zh community.
Lorenzarius
Apparently, you underestimate the power of nationalism.
I am well aware they do not read SC exclusively. HOWEVER, SC is by far their prefered script and in most cases their edits are around 99% or 95% to Simplified articles.
Jin Junshu/Mark
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:44:36 +0800, Lorenzarius lorenzarius@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:43:55 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp: easily too. How is that relevant?
You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
So what? That means we are solving the problem. While you're evading the problem, by simply splitting zh into zh-tw and zh-cn.
"Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote, because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users - including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.
This is not a comparable scenario.
Mainland Chinese does not live in Taiwan. They are not the people of Taiwan. Thus they have no right to decide whether Taiwan should do anything.
However, wikipedians from mainland does not only read SC exclusively. Most of them can read both TC and SC. That makes them eligible to vote on this TC/SC issue.
And why do you think mainlanders would vote in favor of unification? Is that because you have some prejudice against people from mainland? If this is so, this again shows you that you don't understand the zh community.
Lorenzarius
By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC users "living in the same universe" or something.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:44:36 +0800, Lorenzarius lorenzarius@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:43:55 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp: easily too. How is that relevant?
You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
So what? That means we are solving the problem. While you're evading the problem, by simply splitting zh into zh-tw and zh-cn.
"Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote, because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users - including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.
This is not a comparable scenario.
Mainland Chinese does not live in Taiwan. They are not the people of Taiwan. Thus they have no right to decide whether Taiwan should do anything.
However, wikipedians from mainland does not only read SC exclusively. Most of them can read both TC and SC. That makes them eligible to vote on this TC/SC issue.
And why do you think mainlanders would vote in favor of unification? Is that because you have some prejudice against people from mainland? If this is so, this again shows you that you don't understand the zh community.
Lorenzarius
You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
Ummm...English is Indo-European (or Indo-Germanic, if you prefer). Japanese isn't.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 2:59 AM To: Lorenzarius Cc: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia
By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC users "living in the same universe" or something.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:44:36 +0800, Lorenzarius lorenzarius@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:43:55 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp: easily too. How is that relevant?
You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.
Yes, I tried it. So what?
So what? That means we are solving the problem. While you're evading the problem, by simply splitting zh into zh-tw and zh-cn.
"Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote, because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users - including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.
This is not a comparable scenario.
Mainland Chinese does not live in Taiwan. They are not the people of Taiwan. Thus they have no right to decide whether Taiwan should do anything.
However, wikipedians from mainland does not only read SC exclusively. Most of them can read both TC and SC. That makes them eligible to vote on this TC/SC issue.
And why do you think mainlanders would vote in favor of unification? Is that because you have some prejudice against people from mainland? If this is so, this again shows you that you don't understand the zh community.
Lorenzarius
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org