I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the* diabolicum* trail?
Alex
Surely it would be possible and preferable, but as with everything else on Wikimedia, such a step also requires support among all affected communities.
Op 27 nov. 2015 om 16:03 heeft Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the diabolicum trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
I see an argument unsupported by evidence, and without evidence it approaches baseless and without value.
Please go and write an essay about the matter at https://wikisource.org/ referencing the original argument for the split, and how the reintroduction of a single site would be of value, and how it might be done. In fact how it will be better than now. Otherwise all I see is a doom and gloom worry-wort.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the diabolicum trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hi,
I failed to understand how splitting Wikisource projects in different languages had been a mistake and how that affected communities badly.
As part of Bengali Wikisource community, I can only say, we are doing well and we don't want to return back to old multilingual Wikisource.
Regards, Bodhisattwa On 28 Nov 2015 16:10, "billinghurst" billinghurstwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I see an argument unsupported by evidence, and without evidence it approaches baseless and without value.
Please go and write an essay about the matter at https://wikisource.org/ referencing the original argument for the split, and how the reintroduction of a single site would be of value, and how it might be done. In fact how it will be better than now. Otherwise all I see is a doom and gloom worry-wort.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the diabolicum trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Thanks for interest. I work mainly into it.source, but I often try to work a little bit into other projects too for a number of reasons. I find unknown templates, tools, policies, all from them very interesting; and I do too some effort to import them into it.source, but it's difficult, since diversity grows daily and some good ideas are very difficult to implement into different contexts.
I'm only a wikisource active user, not more than this, I've not sufficient technical or organizing skills to build a project to revert what I see as a big mistake, and I'm far from sure that my opinion is right; but I feel the need to share this personal opinion.
About mul.source: my suggestion would be, to activate into it best tools and gadgets, best templates, best policies and best docs; to remove as soon as possible any trouble for its users; and to encourage users to upload there any multi-language book.
Alex
2015-11-28 12:54 GMT+01:00 Bodhisattwa Mandal bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com:
Hi,
I failed to understand how splitting Wikisource projects in different languages had been a mistake and how that affected communities badly.
As part of Bengali Wikisource community, I can only say, we are doing well and we don't want to return back to old multilingual Wikisource.
Regards, Bodhisattwa On 28 Nov 2015 16:10, "billinghurst" billinghurstwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I see an argument unsupported by evidence, and without evidence it approaches baseless and without value.
Please go and write an essay about the matter at https://wikisource.org/ referencing the original argument for the split, and how the reintroduction of a single site would be of value, and how it might be done. In fact how it will be better than now. Otherwise all I see is a doom and gloom worry-wort.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the diabolicum trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Unfortunately the communities use different languages. To improve the communication it's natural to split wikisource in different projects.
The same is valid also to implement solutions because it is easier to do it in smaller communities than to find an agreement satisfying the whole community.
Anyway an integration is welcome and can be a good solution but if Wikisource can offer the solution to build smaller linguistical subprojects inside a bigger one in order to keep an uniformity but also to satisfy the need of diversity.
Kind regards
On 28.11.2015 14:26, Alex Brollo wrote:
Thanks for interest. I work mainly into it.source, but I often try to work a little bit into other projects too for a number of reasons. I find unknown templates, tools, policies, all from them very interesting; and I do too some effort to import them into it.source, but it's difficult, since diversity grows daily and some good ideas are very difficult to implement into different contexts.
I'm only a wikisource active user, not more than this, I've not sufficient technical or organizing skills to build a project to revert what I see as a big mistake, and I'm far from sure that my opinion is right; but I feel the need to share this personal opinion.
About mul.source: my suggestion would be, to activate into it best tools and gadgets, best templates, best policies and best docs; to remove as soon as possible any trouble for its users; and to encourage users to upload there any multi-language book.
Alex
Le 28/11/2015 14:26, Alex Brollo a écrit :
Thanks for interest. I work mainly into it.source, but I often try to work a little bit into other projects too for a number of reasons. I find unknown templates, tools, policies, all from them very interesting; and I do too some effort to import them into it.source, but it's difficult, since diversity grows daily and some good ideas are very difficult to implement into different contexts.
This is more a problem of enbling easy cross wiki template (and module) reuse. See for example https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6547
billinghurst, 28/11/2015 11:40:
Please go and write an essay about the matter at https://wikisource.org/ referencing the original argument for the split, and how the reintroduction of a single site would be of value, and how it might be done. In fact how it will be better than now. Otherwise all I see is a doom and gloom worry-wort.
+1 Following some recent discussions on NPOV, content forking AKA separatism and so on, I expanded an existing essay on Meta with a summary of the main discussions in ~2003 and 2015.
There is a section where I briefly mentioned Wikisource, it would be great to link a Wikisource.org essay where to examine all pros and cons of the Wikisource split: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Why_creating_new_wikis_is_a_bad_idea#Languag...
Nemo
I added here (please consider that I use the first book that captured my curiosity into it.source main page.... ) simply a link to ePub generator into Book template (Description field) of a djvu file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gioventu_italiana_del_littorio.djvu. The link runs.
A very simple way to transform Commons into a ePub central storage place (t.i. "a library"), isn't it?
Alex
2015-11-30 12:22 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
billinghurst, 28/11/2015 11:40:
Please go and write an essay about the matter at https://wikisource.org/ referencing the original argument for the split, and how the reintroduction of a single site would be of value, and how it might be done. In fact how it will be better than now. Otherwise all I see is a doom and gloom worry-wort.
+1 Following some recent discussions on NPOV, content forking AKA separatism and so on, I expanded an existing essay on Meta with a summary of the main discussions in ~2003 and 2015.
There is a section where I briefly mentioned Wikisource, it would be great to link a Wikisource.org essay where to examine all pros and cons of the Wikisource split: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Why_creating_new_wikis_is_a_bad_idea#Languag...
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Alex Brollo wrote:
I work mainly into it.source, but I often try to work a little bit into
other projects too for a number of reasons. I find unknown templates, tools, policies, all from them very interesting; and I do too some effort to import them into it.source, but it's difficult, since diversity grows daily and some good ideas are very difficult to implement into different contexts.
This sounds like the same ENORMOUS problem that Wikipedia has. Wikipedia in each language has thousands of templates and scripts and gadgets, they are different, they are not synchronized, they are not internationalized, their code is not properly reviewed, and so on. This is not to say that they are bad - contrariwise, they are wonderful, they are developed by skillful people, and the very fact that they exist shows that they are needed. But it does complicate the development of extensions that are supposed to work in all wikis, and it complicates usual wiki authors' cross-language work.
I'd love to get that fixed for both Wikipedia and Wikisource, but it will be a big challenge.
Originally Wikisource was split because right-to-left Hebrew texts didn't work with the left-to-right only interface. This was a technical issue and it was mostly resolved in 2011 by SPQRobin, so maybe today it wouldn't be split for this reason. But what's done is done.
What is really needed is defining the actual problems and addressing them. Going back to Mulitlingual Wikisource may or may not be the solution, but the problems must be defined first.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2015-11-27 17:03 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the* diabolicum* trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hello,
Some templates ought to be universally available but if that is the heart of the problem then that does not settle a call for a merge because the split brought other benefits and the template problems will be fixed eventually.
Are there other problems associated with the split which have not been addressed and which bother you?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Alex Brollo wrote:
I work mainly into it.source, but I often try to work a little bit into
other projects too for a number of reasons. I find unknown templates, tools, policies, all from them very interesting; and I do too some effort to import them into it.source, but it's difficult, since diversity grows daily and some good ideas are very difficult to implement into different contexts.
This sounds like the same ENORMOUS problem that Wikipedia has. Wikipedia in each language has thousands of templates and scripts and gadgets, they are different, they are not synchronized, they are not internationalized, their code is not properly reviewed, and so on. This is not to say that they are bad - contrariwise, they are wonderful, they are developed by skillful people, and the very fact that they exist shows that they are needed. But it does complicate the development of extensions that are supposed to work in all wikis, and it complicates usual wiki authors' cross-language work.
I'd love to get that fixed for both Wikipedia and Wikisource, but it will be a big challenge.
Originally Wikisource was split because right-to-left Hebrew texts didn't work with the left-to-right only interface. This was a technical issue and it was mostly resolved in 2011 by SPQRobin, so maybe today it wouldn't be split for this reason. But what's done is done.
What is really needed is defining the actual problems and addressing them. Going back to Mulitlingual Wikisource may or may not be the solution, but the problems must be defined first.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2015-11-27 17:03 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the* diabolicum* trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
That's the same I have been thinking.
It does not make sense to split it. Besides while for Wikipedia we have Belarussian Wikipedia in official and tarashkevitsa orthographies in wikisourse that would be one project. Russian Wikisourse hosts tests in pre-1918 (or whatever exact year) orthography. Ukrainian Wikisourse has texts which use unique orthography. I'll repeat myself, in case of WP that would all be different projects.
Besides it does not make bit sense to have la.ws in Latin for discussions since people can proofread stuff without actually being able to speak la.
Another thing in la.ws there's a book which is half Russian half Latin. It would fit multilingual ws just perfectly but now it looks weird. There are lots of such bi or more lingual books in the world.
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor to WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in a structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such an initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Maybe it is "fine" but I am afraid it is only "fine" for majority (that speaks English or at least one major European language). As an example, note, that there is very few discussion in Chinese in Village pump despite there is a lot Chinese users there and many of them do not speak English.
It is very difficult to operate on Commons for users that speak only Thai, Urdu, Bashkir, Hindi or another not highly populated language.
Also there are attempts to discriminate users who do not speak / do not understand English.
IMO, there is high risk that merging all wikisources would marginalize minorities or people who are not multilingual.
The other issue is (I noticed it in plwikisoure) that few users come to wikisource because they feel bad in large wiki communities (plwiki in our case). (I don't know if there are similar cases in otner wikisources, but likely.) In case, we decide to merge projects they will leave. So disadvantage here is the risk of losing users that we do not have too many.
However, there are also advantages of unification and closer cooperation. Question is: will they predominate?
Ankry
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor to WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in a structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such an initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hi,
During the recent Wikisource Conference in Vienna, need for global gadgets, templates and module was discussed and already it has been reported in Phabricator ( https https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238:// https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238phabricator.wikimedia.org https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238/T1238 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238 ). So someday, the problem will be solved.
To me, it is not at all a good idea to return back to multilingual WS for this reason. The diversity of the language projects make Wikimedia movement unique which includes Wikisource as well. Every language and scripts has its own unique problem, which can not be generalised at all. Besides, if some WS community choose to return back to multilingual, I think, that's possible, but not every WS community would want or like to do that.
Regards, Bodhisattwa Maybe it is "fine" but I am afraid it is only "fine" for majority (that speaks English or at least one major European language). As an example, note, that there is very few discussion in Chinese in Village pump despite there is a lot Chinese users there and many of them do not speak English.
It is very difficult to operate on Commons for users that speak only Thai, Urdu, Bashkir, Hindi or another not highly populated language.
Also there are attempts to discriminate users who do not speak / do not understand English.
IMO, there is high risk that merging all wikisources would marginalize minorities or people who are not multilingual.
The other issue is (I noticed it in plwikisoure) that few users come to wikisource because they feel bad in large wiki communities (plwiki in our case). (I don't know if there are similar cases in otner wikisources, but likely.) In case, we decide to merge projects they will leave. So disadvantage here is the risk of losing users that we do not have too many.
However, there are also advantages of unification and closer cooperation. Question is: will they predominate?
Ankry
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor to WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in a structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such an initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
There is no need for global gadgets, javascripts are able to be pulled x-wiki now and are essentially global, and if any community wishes to use another's gadgets they can now. If they are not usable then request to make them usable. If they want assistance, then ask for it.
I would think that we are looking to argue that we would be looking for the x-Wikisource application of Module: ns to allow a one to many pull of Module: from that space. Traditionally that has been oldwikisource, though one would say that other wikisources have been where more development has taken place more recently, so there is possibly argument about where, otherwise HOW if they are to be at (mul|old)wikisource
I still believe that if this is a rational complaint then someone will sit down and write down out the issues on a wiki and we can step through them. Plaintive cries to a mailing list just creates noise, and little action. Wistful commentary about how olden times were better has never had a success in my simple look at history.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
During the recent Wikisource Conference in Vienna, need for global gadgets, templates and module was discussed and already it has been reported in Phabricator ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238 ). So someday, the problem will be solved.
To me, it is not at all a good idea to return back to multilingual WS for this reason. The diversity of the language projects make Wikimedia movement unique which includes Wikisource as well. Every language and scripts has its own unique problem, which can not be generalised at all. Besides, if some WS community choose to return back to multilingual, I think, that's possible, but not every WS community would want or like to do that.
Regards, Bodhisattwa
Maybe it is "fine" but I am afraid it is only "fine" for majority (that speaks English or at least one major European language). As an example, note, that there is very few discussion in Chinese in Village pump despite there is a lot Chinese users there and many of them do not speak English.
It is very difficult to operate on Commons for users that speak only Thai, Urdu, Bashkir, Hindi or another not highly populated language.
Also there are attempts to discriminate users who do not speak / do not understand English.
IMO, there is high risk that merging all wikisources would marginalize minorities or people who are not multilingual.
The other issue is (I noticed it in plwikisoure) that few users come to wikisource because they feel bad in large wiki communities (plwiki in our case). (I don't know if there are similar cases in otner wikisources, but likely.) In case, we decide to merge projects they will leave. So disadvantage here is the risk of losing users that we do not have too many.
However, there are also advantages of unification and closer cooperation. Question is: will they predominate?
Ankry
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor to WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in a structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such an initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Perhaps some problems come from the double nature of wikisource - that is both a *typography *and a *library*. I see soma advantage from having language-specific typographies, but I can't see any advantage from having language-specific libraries; my dream would be, a Commons like architecture, to share *source texts* just as any project can share *media* .
A bold solution could be, to share texts using Commons; I'm just playing with the idea of uploading wiki text, or html, of nsPage into djvu page metadata.
Alex
2015-11-29 2:19 GMT+01:00 billinghurst billinghurstwiki@gmail.com:
There is no need for global gadgets, javascripts are able to be pulled x-wiki now and are essentially global, and if any community wishes to use another's gadgets they can now. If they are not usable then request to make them usable. If they want assistance, then ask for it.
I would think that we are looking to argue that we would be looking for the x-Wikisource application of Module: ns to allow a one to many pull of Module: from that space. Traditionally that has been oldwikisource, though one would say that other wikisources have been where more development has taken place more recently, so there is possibly argument about where, otherwise HOW if they are to be at (mul|old)wikisource
I still believe that if this is a rational complaint then someone will sit down and write down out the issues on a wiki and we can step through them. Plaintive cries to a mailing list just creates noise, and little action. Wistful commentary about how olden times were better has never had a success in my simple look at history.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
During the recent Wikisource Conference in Vienna, need for global
gadgets,
templates and module was discussed and already it has been reported in Phabricator ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238 ). So someday, the problem will be solved.
To me, it is not at all a good idea to return back to multilingual WS for this reason. The diversity of the language projects make Wikimedia
movement
unique which includes Wikisource as well. Every language and scripts has
its
own unique problem, which can not be generalised at all. Besides, if
some WS
community choose to return back to multilingual, I think, that's
possible,
but not every WS community would want or like to do that.
Regards, Bodhisattwa
Maybe it is "fine" but I am afraid it is only "fine" for majority (that speaks English or at least one major European language). As an example, note, that there is very few discussion in Chinese in Village pump
despite
there is a lot Chinese users there and many of them do not speak English.
It is very difficult to operate on Commons for users that speak only
Thai,
Urdu, Bashkir, Hindi or another not highly populated language.
Also there are attempts to discriminate users who do not speak / do not understand English.
IMO, there is high risk that merging all wikisources would marginalize minorities or people who are not multilingual.
The other issue is (I noticed it in plwikisoure) that few users come to wikisource because they feel bad in large wiki communities (plwiki in our case). (I don't know if there are similar cases in otner wikisources, but likely.) In case, we decide to merge projects they will leave. So disadvantage here is the risk of losing users that we do not have too many.
However, there are also advantages of unification and closer cooperation. Question is: will they predominate?
Ankry
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor to WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in a structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such an initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that
mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
One significant advantage of per-language Wikisources is that the interface language is appropriate for *readers* (not logged in users) of the materials we curate in those Wikisources.
A.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps some problems come from the double nature of wikisource - that is both a *typography *and a *library*. I see soma advantage from having language-specific typographies, but I can't see any advantage from having language-specific libraries; my dream would be, a Commons like architecture, to share *source texts* just as any project can share *media*.
A bold solution could be, to share texts using Commons; I'm just playing with the idea of uploading wiki text, or html, of nsPage into djvu page metadata.
Alex
2015-11-29 2:19 GMT+01:00 billinghurst billinghurstwiki@gmail.com:
There is no need for global gadgets, javascripts are able to be pulled x-wiki now and are essentially global, and if any community wishes to use another's gadgets they can now. If they are not usable then request to make them usable. If they want assistance, then ask for it.
I would think that we are looking to argue that we would be looking for the x-Wikisource application of Module: ns to allow a one to many pull of Module: from that space. Traditionally that has been oldwikisource, though one would say that other wikisources have been where more development has taken place more recently, so there is possibly argument about where, otherwise HOW if they are to be at (mul|old)wikisource
I still believe that if this is a rational complaint then someone will sit down and write down out the issues on a wiki and we can step through them. Plaintive cries to a mailing list just creates noise, and little action. Wistful commentary about how olden times were better has never had a success in my simple look at history.
Regards, Billinghurst
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
During the recent Wikisource Conference in Vienna, need for global
gadgets,
templates and module was discussed and already it has been reported in Phabricator ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1238 ). So someday,
the
problem will be solved.
To me, it is not at all a good idea to return back to multilingual WS
for
this reason. The diversity of the language projects make Wikimedia
movement
unique which includes Wikisource as well. Every language and scripts
has its
own unique problem, which can not be generalised at all. Besides, if
some WS
community choose to return back to multilingual, I think, that's
possible,
but not every WS community would want or like to do that.
Regards, Bodhisattwa
Maybe it is "fine" but I am afraid it is only "fine" for majority (that speaks English or at least one major European language). As an example, note, that there is very few discussion in Chinese in Village pump
despite
there is a lot Chinese users there and many of them do not speak
English.
It is very difficult to operate on Commons for users that speak only
Thai,
Urdu, Bashkir, Hindi or another not highly populated language.
Also there are attempts to discriminate users who do not speak / do not understand English.
IMO, there is high risk that merging all wikisources would marginalize minorities or people who are not multilingual.
The other issue is (I noticed it in plwikisoure) that few users come to wikisource because they feel bad in large wiki communities (plwiki in
our
case). (I don't know if there are similar cases in otner wikisources,
but
likely.) In case, we decide to merge projects they will leave. So disadvantage here is the risk of losing users that we do not have too many.
However, there are also advantages of unification and closer
cooperation.
Question is: will they predominate?
Ankry
As to the communication problems well WD and Commons are doing just fine, it's no problem really. I am actually not an active contributor
to
WS but I always had a feeling that I'd perhaps be one if it was not split. It's easier to work in big project with all infrastructure ready and big community to help you, in small on the other hand you have to face the same 1 or 2 people or the time and personal issues may come in the way of participation.
I am not a person to have enough energy to run a major RfC in order to have the WSs joined (as you can see I even failed to show my points in
a
structured way) but if such a person shows up I'd gladly support such
an
initiative.
--Base
On 27.11.2015 17:03, Alex Brollo wrote:
I'm deeply convinced that splitting wikisource projects into variuos languages has been a mistake.
Is anyone so bold to imagine that it is possible to revert that
mistake?
Or, are we forced to travel along the/ diabolicum/ trail?
Alex
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Asaf Bartov, 29/11/2015 14:40:
One significant advantage of per-language Wikisources is that the interface language is appropriate
That's a bug, as well: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T58464
I agree it's shameful that WMF doesn't fix the most fundamental bugs which make collaboration harder, even when they've been known for a decade AND software is available to fix them.
Nemo
There's a unique feature of wikisource: anyone can contribute, even if he *doesn't know at all the language of the text that it is editing* (it is sufficient to recognize the characters of that language). It would be a little bit painful, but I could proofread an hungarian text, finding and fixing some scannos. A small contribute, but a valuable one. On the contrary, I can't contribute at all to any other hungarian project. I could too apply some basic formatting to the same, incomprehensible hungarian text, but only using standard wiki markup, or css/html, that are *universal languages*. I could do most of needed work using shared templates and scripts, without any knowledge of the hungarian language.
This uniqueness of wikisource (only shared by images and other media into Commons) has been underestimated IMHO.
Alex
2015-11-29 14:48 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
Asaf Bartov, 29/11/2015 14:40:
One significant advantage of per-language Wikisources is that the interface language is appropriate
That's a bug, as well: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T58464
I agree it's shameful that WMF doesn't fix the most fundamental bugs which make collaboration harder, even when they've been known for a decade AND software is available to fix them.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
In theory, I agree with Alex: in an ideal world, we would have tens of developers supporting Wikisource (paid by the WMF, by the chaptes, by GLAMs), we would have many rich communities, and we could surely imagine a new structure of all our websites would that allow us to store books in the same place, and at the same time have different village pumps and interfaces and gadgets etc.
Unfortunately, for the time being, we hare scattered communities with no software support whatsoever: we don't have a Proofread page for Right-to-left languages, just imagine how much time it would take to redesign a MediaWiki for being a multilanguage, unique digital library, in which anyone can contribute.
I try to be more concrete and think about smaller goals we can achieve right now: maybe, in few years we can rediscuss this :-)
Aubrey
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
There's a unique feature of wikisource: anyone can contribute, even if he *doesn't know at all the language of the text that it is editing* (it is sufficient to recognize the characters of that language). It would be a little bit painful, but I could proofread an hungarian text, finding and fixing some scannos. A small contribute, but a valuable one. On the contrary, I can't contribute at all to any other hungarian project. I could too apply some basic formatting to the same, incomprehensible hungarian text, but only using standard wiki markup, or css/html, that are *universal languages*. I could do most of needed work using shared templates and scripts, without any knowledge of the hungarian language.
This uniqueness of wikisource (only shared by images and other media into Commons) has been underestimated IMHO.
Alex
2015-11-29 14:48 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
Asaf Bartov, 29/11/2015 14:40:
One significant advantage of per-language Wikisources is that the interface language is appropriate
That's a bug, as well: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T58464
I agree it's shameful that WMF doesn't fix the most fundamental bugs which make collaboration harder, even when they've been known for a decade AND software is available to fix them.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
What about having both central and local versions? I mean, for community stuffs localization is clearly a big pro, and those who are more interesting to get extra-localized works could go to the central repository which would gather all localized mainspaces.
Le 29/11/2015 18:39, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
In theory, I agree with Alex: in an ideal world, we would have tens of developers supporting Wikisource (paid by the WMF, by the chaptes, by GLAMs), we would have many rich communities, and we could surely imagine a new structure of all our websites would that allow us to store books in the same place, and at the same time have different village pumps and interfaces and gadgets etc.
Unfortunately, for the time being, we hare scattered communities with no software support whatsoever: we don't have a Proofread page for Right-to-left languages, just imagine how much time it would take to redesign a MediaWiki for being a multilanguage, unique digital library, in which anyone can contribute.
I try to be more concrete and think about smaller goals we can achieve right now: maybe, in few years we can rediscuss this :-)
Aubrey
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@gmail.com mailto:alex.brollo@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a unique feature of wikisource: anyone can contribute, even if he /doesn't know at all the language of the text that it is editing/ (it is sufficient to recognize the characters of that language). It would be a little bit painful, but I could proofread an hungarian text, finding and fixing some scannos. A small contribute, but a valuable one. On the contrary, I can't contribute at all to any other hungarian project. I could too apply some basic formatting to the same, incomprehensible hungarian text, but only using standard wiki markup, or css/html, that are /universal languages/. I could do most of needed work using shared templates and scripts, without any knowledge of the hungarian language. This uniqueness of wikisource (only shared by images and other media into Commons) has been underestimated IMHO. Alex 2015-11-29 14:48 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>>: Asaf Bartov, 29/11/2015 14:40: One significant advantage of per-language Wikisources is that the interface language is appropriate That's a bug, as well: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T58464 I agree it's shameful that WMF doesn't fix the most fundamental bugs which make collaboration harder, even when they've been known for a decade AND software is available to fix them. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Mathieu Stumpf Guntz, 29/11/2015 18:57:
What about having both central and local versions? I mean, for community stuffs localization is clearly a big pro, and those who are more interesting to get extra-localized works could go to the central repository which would gather all localized mainspaces.
Do oldwikisource admins currently force people to go away if their language is supported elsewhere? I seem to recall we decided in the past that it's fine to put a text there if you're unsure what subdomain would be best (think of "dialects" of languages with an existing subdomain, or multilingual texts).
Nemo
Mathieu Stumpf Guntz, 29/11/2015 18:57:
What about having both central and local versions? I mean, for community stuffs localization is clearly a big pro, and those who are more interesting to get extra-localized works could go to the central repository which would gather all localized mainspaces.
Do oldwikisource admins currently force people to go away if their language is supported elsewhere?
Yes they do. Unless there are non-US copyright problems ot the text is really multilingual.
Ankry
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
Unfortunately, for the time being, we hare scattered communities with no software support whatsoever: we don't have a Proofread page for Right-to-left languages, just imagine how much time it would take to redesign a MediaWiki for being a multilanguage, unique digital library, in which anyone can contribute. (...)
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages. Or at least one multilanguage Wikisource for languages based on roman script
It's very disturbing to work on Wikisource if you is interested in a subject and is able to read in more than one language. On the very specif subject of "slavery on Brazil" you will find works in Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, German and Latin, with at least 90% of them never translated to another language.
Also is very annoying to create thousands of Author pages to simply show snippets of biographical data for persons mentioned in a given work, since any regular research work (current or ancient) *will* refer to works in more than one language; most of those persons don't have any work translated to your language, PD-old or copyrighted, but you still will need to create an Author page if you is interested to help readers to proper understand a given text.
BTW this need pointed me to create a new local innovation: a template to point the reader to the Wikisource edition that will have works by a given person ({{autor-idioma}}). And, to prevent good faith users uploading copyrighted translations, there's also the need to put an old local innovation from es.Wikisource (currently adopted in many subdomains, en.Wikisource including). See the
https://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Autor:Bonaventure_des_P%C3%A9riers
Not to mention that each subdomain have their own way to sort and store data on Author namespace, that certainly is the crossing barrier for those that searchs for a subject on libraries OPACs to never adopt Wikisource as a search point (eventually going to Wikisource pages thanks to Google search): they don't have time to be trained on 60 subdomains website designs to research to find information in a language that they are able to read (or to translate using a software).
In this current subdomain approach, Wikisource will be able to proper store only fiction works (since language is the main criteria for adopting a fiction work to read), but never non-fiction works (neither non-fiction works that describes fiction works: the world was culturally globalized centuries ago).
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
Unfortunately, for the time being, we hare scattered communities with no software support whatsoever: we don't have a Proofread page for Right-to-left languages, just imagine how much time it would take to redesign a MediaWiki for being a multilanguage, unique digital library, in which anyone can contribute. (...)
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Ankry
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Ankry ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl wrote:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Those are related on how MediaWiki renders text, so can be easily circumvented in a multilingual wiki adding a new feature to instruct MediaWiki to renders based in a given language. If in Page namespace, adding to the current <pagequality level="X" user="USERNAME" /> tag a lang parameter <pagequality level="X" user="USERNAME" content-language="fr" />
or, for pages with texts in more than one language (such quotations), on LabeledSectionTransclusion tags, making <section begin="SECTION_NAME"/> <section end="SECTION_NAME"/> as <section begin="SECTION_NAME" content-language="fr" /> <section end="SECTION_NAME"/>
(T14752 is not related to ProofreadPage extension, but the language trick can be added on this way as a shortcut for some possible new MediaWiki parser tags)
I'm testing a feature of djvu files, t.i. the possibility of upload into a shared internal file, or into pages, *any unlimited text of any type*. Html could be upload (with banal encoding) and downloaded. It's only a play so far; but I think that it could be interesting to explore, since there's the opportunity to invisibly wrap into djvu page *the html of wikisource nsPage* - so allowing to extract, visualize, and use it with a "reader" by basic djvulibre routines (djvused.exe) and some code.
Obviously, there are serious safety issues and a need of sanitization - "any text" is an alarming statement.
Alex
2015-11-30 2:23 GMT+01:00 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Ankry ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl wrote:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Those are related on how MediaWiki renders text, so can be easily circumvented in a multilingual wiki adding a new feature to instruct MediaWiki to renders based in a given language. If in Page namespace, adding to the current
<pagequality level="X" user="USERNAME" /> tag a lang parameter <pagequality level="X" user="USERNAME" content-language="fr" />
or, for pages with texts in more than one language (such quotations), on LabeledSectionTransclusion tags, making
<section begin="SECTION_NAME"/> <section end="SECTION_NAME"/> as <section begin="SECTION_NAME" content-language="fr" /> <section end="SECTION_NAME"/>
(T14752 is not related to ProofreadPage extension, but the language trick can be added on this way as a shortcut for some possible new MediaWiki parser tags)
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Maybe it's me, but I think that we are missing the real, huge point: *we are not ready for this*.
I mean, we, as a community: in the few days in Vienna, we discovered how many problems each Wikisource and community has, and that was the first time we had the chance to meet and talk (at that scale). Yes, being all in the same place would maybe shorten the distance within the international community, but it would be an enormous challenge for the amount of software tweakings (gadgets, css, proofread page, layouts, everything), and it would be a real, literal "babel" of languages. And, remember, without the support of any engineer at the WMF! :-)
So, please, keep our feet on the ground. Xanadu was the perfect model for a digital library, and after 50 years is still not real. Our problem, in Wikisource, is that each community has created little, complicated gadgets and templates to do amazing things, but the result is that we are overly complicated. We need to simplify things, be better for our readers and beginners, new editors. Our strength is the community, above everything else. That we have to nurture and care about.
As much as I love the idea of a unique, Babelian (Borges style) digital library, it won't happen if before we don't fix much more urgent things. Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Aubrey
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Multilingual texts can either be treated on the ws of its main language. In case of a translation, that would most likely be the destination language. We have examples of English and Russian texts translated into Hebrew and placed side-by-side using Table interface in he.ws. In other cases the language site could be decided arbitrarily by the original contributor (perhaps according to where he feels more comfortable, either for his personal native language or for the specific community happening to be there), etc. The current form enables flexibility which would be unavialble on a single multilingual site and is most likely to drive possible contributors away. Just my 10 cents, based by my own personal experfience as a veteran he.ws (and former en.wp and he.wp) active editor.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's me, but I think that we are missing the real, huge point: *we are not ready for this*.
I mean, we, as a community: in the few days in Vienna, we discovered how many problems each Wikisource and community has, and that was the first time we had the chance to meet and talk (at that scale). Yes, being all in the same place would maybe shorten the distance within the international community, but it would be an enormous challenge for the amount of software tweakings (gadgets, css, proofread page, layouts, everything), and it would be a real, literal "babel" of languages. And, remember, without the support of any engineer at the WMF! :-)
So, please, keep our feet on the ground. Xanadu was the perfect model for a digital library, and after 50 years is still not real. Our problem, in Wikisource, is that each community has created little, complicated gadgets and templates to do amazing things, but the result is that we are overly complicated. We need to simplify things, be better for our readers and beginners, new editors. Our strength is the community, above everything else. That we have to nurture and care about.
As much as I love the idea of a unique, Babelian (Borges style) digital library, it won't happen if before we don't fix much more urgent things. Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Aubrey
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages,
another
for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
@Nahum: What is "Table interface"? Can you please link a page using it, just to take a look?
Alex
2015-12-01 1:44 GMT+01:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't
even mention them, I think).
Multilingual texts can either be treated on the ws of its main language. In case of a translation, that would most likely be the destination language. We have examples of English and Russian texts translated into Hebrew and placed side-by-side using Table interface in he.ws. In other cases the language site could be decided arbitrarily by the original contributor (perhaps according to where he feels more comfortable, either for his personal native language or for the specific community happening to be there), etc. The current form enables flexibility which would be unavialble on a single multilingual site and is most likely to drive possible contributors away. Just my 10 cents, based by my own personal experfience as a veteran he.ws (and former en.wp and he.wp) active editor.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's me, but I think that we are missing the real, huge point: *we are not ready for this*.
I mean, we, as a community: in the few days in Vienna, we discovered how many problems each Wikisource and community has, and that was the first time we had the chance to meet and talk (at that scale). Yes, being all in the same place would maybe shorten the distance within the international community, but it would be an enormous challenge for the amount of software tweakings (gadgets, css, proofread page, layouts, everything), and it would be a real, literal "babel" of languages. And, remember, without the support of any engineer at the WMF! :-)
So, please, keep our feet on the ground. Xanadu was the perfect model for a digital library, and after 50 years is still not real. Our problem, in Wikisource, is that each community has created little, complicated gadgets and templates to do amazing things, but the result is that we are overly complicated. We need to simplify things, be better for our readers and beginners, new editors. Our strength is the community, above everything else. That we have to nurture and care about.
As much as I love the idea of a unique, Babelian (Borges style) digital library, it won't happen if before we don't fix much more urgent things. Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Aubrey
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages,
another
for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
@Alex Brollo: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9D_(%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%99%...)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
@Nahum: What is "Table interface"? Can you please link a page using it, just to take a look?
Alex
2015-12-01 1:44 GMT+01:00 Nahum Wengrov novartza@gmail.com:
Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't
even mention them, I think).
Multilingual texts can either be treated on the ws of its main language. In case of a translation, that would most likely be the destination language. We have examples of English and Russian texts translated into Hebrew and placed side-by-side using Table interface in he.ws. In other cases the language site could be decided arbitrarily by the original contributor (perhaps according to where he feels more comfortable, either for his personal native language or for the specific community happening to be there), etc. The current form enables flexibility which would be unavialble on a single multilingual site and is most likely to drive possible contributors away. Just my 10 cents, based by my own personal experfience as a veteran he.ws (and former en.wp and he.wp) active editor.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's me, but I think that we are missing the real, huge point: *we are not ready for this*.
I mean, we, as a community: in the few days in Vienna, we discovered how many problems each Wikisource and community has, and that was the first time we had the chance to meet and talk (at that scale). Yes, being all in the same place would maybe shorten the distance within the international community, but it would be an enormous challenge for the amount of software tweakings (gadgets, css, proofread page, layouts, everything), and it would be a real, literal "babel" of languages. And, remember, without the support of any engineer at the WMF! :-)
So, please, keep our feet on the ground. Xanadu was the perfect model for a digital library, and after 50 years is still not real. Our problem, in Wikisource, is that each community has created little, complicated gadgets and templates to do amazing things, but the result is that we are overly complicated. We need to simplify things, be better for our readers and beginners, new editors. Our strength is the community, above everything else. That we have to nurture and care about.
As much as I love the idea of a unique, Babelian (Borges style) digital library, it won't happen if before we don't fix much more urgent things. Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Aubrey
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
>What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another >for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Le 30/11/2015 10:56, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
As much as I love the idea of a unique, Babelian (Borges style) digital library, it won't happen if before we don't fix much more urgent things. Multilingual texts are not a priority (35 people in the conference didn't even mention them, I think).
Some Canadian Newspapers using miscellaneous languages and script intertwined, while not speaking of the same subject, have been evoked from what I can remember. But it doesn't mean it's a priority of course.
Aubrey
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22: > >What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another >for LTR languages. ... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ? And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ? If you dig deeper then more such issues. Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223 Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
What Federico is saying is really important in my opinion.
Wikisource can have a good impulse offering a huge set of different languages while other digital libraries are offering the usual and most used languages.
The best would be to approach the problem step by step and working with languages having weak communities where the aggregation in a single hub can offer them a real opportunity and keeping other biggest communities still indipendent to solve their problems.
Even if the community decides to look for an aggregation, what would be the next step? Merging all together with an un-manageable change?
I think that the good solution is to improve the central project and to introduce the best solution to have several languages and to contextualize the page, afterwards other linguistic projects can decide to look for an aggregation (may be in connection with the decrease of size of their communities) or to keep their independence.
Kind regards
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ankry, 29/11/2015 23:22:
What about two multilanguage Wikisources? One for RTL languages, another for LTR languages.
... and the third for some Asian scripts: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60729 ?
And maybe a separate one for French: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14752 ?
If you dig deeper then more such issues.
Again, this problem is already solved: content language can be decided per page. As usual, this is blocked on silly bottlenecks on WMF servers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T69223
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org