W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> napisał:
> 2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner <prosfilaes(a)gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki <ankry.wiki(a)onet.pl> wrote:
> >> I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD translations into each Wikisource
> >> language, including Latin and Sanskrit.
> >> It would be hard to find 10. Mostly ancient.
> >> Unlike Wikipedia, we present content that has already been created by somebody.
> >> We are not creating that ourselves.
> >> (except few ws accepting Wikisource translations)
> > How many Wikisources don't accept user translations? I'd guess that at least
> > half of them do.
> Good question. We should store clearly this information somewhere (on
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19335648 and local pages ?).
At least 4 do not allow translations.
> > It may not be universal, but you'll never know how many of those works
> actually have PD translations until you actually search for them. A list can
> at least provoke the search.
> I can easily find to 10 works in most languages of the planet (The Bible, the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Shakespeare, Conan Doyle, Dickens, Stevenson,
> Verne, some important international treaty and publication from the Vatican ;
> it's already a lot more than 10 works available in more than 100 languages)
most != all (Most Wikisource should have... != All Wikisource should have...)
> Speaking of the UN, the UNESCO created the Index Translationum
> ( http://www.unesco.org/xtrans/bsstatlist.aspx ) that can be helpful here.
> Cdlt, ~nicolas
> PS: Latin or Sanskrit are not the thoughest challenges, try Breton or Venetian
> :P (by the way, the UDHR exist in these 4 languages and 500 more ;) only the
> Bible has more translations).
I have intentionally chosen dead languages to point out that "all" should not
be the goal.
Concerning, UDHR, we have unclear copyright status even for Polish translation:
it is not considered to be an official legal act, no "official" translation;
translated by a Foundation which say nothing about copyright. And even,
translations of foreign legal acts are considered copyrighted in Poland
(according to opinions we have).
Translation copyright problems may exist for many translations of Conan Doyle,
Dickens, Stevenson or Verne.
I also doubt we will get a Wikisource translation of "The Posthumous Papers of the
Pickwick Club" into eg. Lithuanian (while ltwikisource seems to be like
a single-user project - at least recently).
We can talk about 1000-100 "base" works in, maybe, 5-10 most active Wikisources.
There is one particular book I am proof reading in Tamil
language. There is a page which has a family tree chart. How to proof read
that. The page I am talking about can be found here
https://ta.wikisource.org/s/938 . In the current format if downloaded as
epub of rtf etc., the structure is not maintained if page size is changed.
How this can be proof read?
W dniu 2017-04-11 16:59:42 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> napisał:
>2017-04-11 16:36 GMT+02:00 ankry.wiki <ankry.wiki(a)onet.pl>:
>W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> napisał:
> > PS: Latin or Sanskrit are not the thoughest challenges, try Breton or Venetian
> > :P (by the way, the UDHR exist in these 4 languages and 500 more ;) only the
> > Bible has more translations).
> I have intentionally chosen dead languages to point out that "all" should not
> be the goal.
>Latin and Sanskrit are not entirely dead and are much more active than most languages
>of the planet (more than Breton or Venitian).
>I"m not sure, we have the same understanding of « goal », for me it's a direction,
>something we should tend toward too, not an obligation that have to be met.
I doubt Conan Doyle's or Verne's works in Latin will ever appear.
>Concerning, UDHR, we have unclear copyright status even for Polish translation:
> it is not considered to be an official legal act, no "official" translation;
> translated by a Foundation which say nothing about copyright. And even,
> translations of foreign legal acts are considered copyrighted in Poland
> (according to opinions we have).
>Uh... strange... I thought UN documents were in public domain (not all of them
>but clearly official documents like the UDHR, and that's why we have >
>And http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/Copyright.aspx seems quite explicit to me.
Oficial UN documents are likely PD. But Polish is not an oficial UN language,
so there is no Polish version of UDHR as an *oficial* UN document.
The Polish translation of UDHR that is being published on UN web pages was
previously published in Poland, and then adopted by UN. I found no reason
that it could be not copyrighted in Polish copyright law. And it is, of course,
newer than 70 years.
Even, if it is PD in US, it is not PD in Poland (likely it is a fair use translation,
but the original translator/publisher is either unreachable or does not want to declare
its license. Just unclear status. "You can use it freely if not modified" is all we
I doubt thare is any point to create another Polish translation of this document.
>Translation copyright problems may exist for many translations of Conan Doyle,
> Dickens, Stevenson or Verne.
> I also doubt we will get a Wikisource translation of "The Posthumous Papers of the
> Pickwick Club" into eg. Lithuanian (while ltwikisource seems to be like
> a single-user project - at least recently).
>Sure, but this is clearly not the work I had in mind ;)
I am afraid, this applies to any work of any author yet unpublished in Lithuanian.
>We can talk about 1000-100 "base" works in, maybe, 5-10 most active Wikisources.
>Exactly! Let's go! Where can we store this? (beside Wikidata of course)
Maybe somewhere in http://wikisource.org (sourceswiki)?
IMO, it is the best place for something applicable to multiple wikisource sites.
I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD translations into each Wikisource language, including Latin and Sanskrit.
It would be hard to find 10. Mostly ancient.
Unlike Wikipedia, we present content that has already been created by somebody. We are not creating that ourselves.
(except few ws accepting Wikisource translations)
W dniu 2017-04-11 09:42:54 użytkownik mathieu stumpf guntz <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> napisał:
> Hi Nemo,
> We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
> have" (with translation possibly needed).
> What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
> frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
> Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
> > One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
> > working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to
> > textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in
> > USA schools:
> > http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarthur-foundation-1…
> > I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
> > I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other
> > languages/geographies.
> > Nemo
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikisource-l mailing list
> > Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> Wikisource-l mailing list
as you probably have heard, a process for writing the strategy of Wikimedia
has started in these days.
It's a complex and collective process, and if you are confused, don't be:
everyone is ;-)
Conversations are starting to pop everywhere on Meta, on Wikipedias, on
Wikisources, probably even on Facebook.
Here you can find a briefing, an initial overview of potential topics that
may come up across various strategy conversations. I suggest you give it a
look to understand the scope of this whole plan:
The question we are asked to answer is this:
***What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?***
I'd like you to go back in your community and join (or start) this
but also share *here* some of your insights and opinions.
We'll polish these thoughts afterwards: this is the time of speaking your
mind and dream big.
I returned yesterday from the annual Wikimedia Conference in Berlin.
I've quite a few things to tell you about the conf and the strategy, but
let me start with this: thanks to Leon Ziemba and Sam Walton,
we have a nice way to show book-based statistics, meaning the aggregated
pageviews for an entire book (main namespace + all the subpages).
Here's the important diff:
So, as an admin, go into your Mediawiki:Histlegend page, and add this code
book pageviews counter]}}
Then, go into the History of a random ns0 book: you should see a new link
"book pageviews counter" (translate as you wish).
I hope this tool is useful!