W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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.
Ankry
2017-04-11 16:36 GMT+02:00 ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@onet.pl:
W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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...)
True but should != must ; for me here, it's a suggestion, not an obligation (either way, nothing can really be obligated on a wiki ;) ).
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.
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.
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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UN-doc ). And http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/Copyright.aspx seems quite explicit to me.
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 ;)
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)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :)
Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit :
W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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.
Ankry
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
I would like to bring back the discussion to the Wikimedia Strategy (of course, you're free to fork this thread in several others: more discussions, the better ;-)
Last week I participated in the Wikimedia Conference, this year focused on Strategy.
We had several sessions in which 200 people from all over the movement brainstormed and discussed freely about one single question: where do we want to be, in 2030. Personally, I advocated and pushed for a more "olistic" approach: not just an encyclopedia, but a platform for accessing and creating knowledge, in whatever form. There is somewhat a general consensus on that, but as a Wikisource community I think it's *fundamental* to give our input, and push towards a Wikimedia that is *beyond Wikipedia*.
Thus, I encourage you again to write here your dream about Wikimedia in 2030: what would you like to see? where would you like to be? In the Wikisource conference, we spoke a lot about language equity, community, tech. I'm sure you're full of ideas and vision.
There are *no wrong answers*, and we still have few days to give our input before the first stage of this long process ends.
Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:03 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :)
Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit :
W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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.
Ankry
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
I tried to put some of the things we said on this page on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Wik...
Feel free to discuss them. Basically, I summarised what Asaf, David and I said.
There will another occasion for discussion, so feel free, again, to jump in at any time.
Aubrey
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to bring back the discussion to the Wikimedia Strategy (of course, you're free to fork this thread in several others: more discussions, the better ;-)
Last week I participated in the Wikimedia Conference, this year focused on Strategy.
We had several sessions in which 200 people from all over the movement brainstormed and discussed freely about one single question: where do we want to be, in 2030. Personally, I advocated and pushed for a more "olistic" approach: not just an encyclopedia, but a platform for accessing and creating knowledge, in whatever form. There is somewhat a general consensus on that, but as a Wikisource community I think it's *fundamental* to give our input, and push towards a Wikimedia that is *beyond Wikipedia*.
Thus, I encourage you again to write here your dream about Wikimedia in 2030: what would you like to see? where would you like to be? In the Wikisource conference, we spoke a lot about language equity, community, tech. I'm sure you're full of ideas and vision.
There are *no wrong answers*, and we still have few days to give our input before the first stage of this long process ends.
Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:03 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :)
Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit :
W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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.
Ankry
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
Thank you for doing us this service, Andrea!
A.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59 PM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
I tried to put some of the things we said on this page on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Wik...
Feel free to discuss them. Basically, I summarised what Asaf, David and I said.
There will another occasion for discussion, so feel free, again, to jump in at any time.
Aubrey
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to bring back the discussion to the Wikimedia Strategy (of course, you're free to fork this thread in several others: more discussions, the better ;-)
Last week I participated in the Wikimedia Conference, this year focused on Strategy.
We had several sessions in which 200 people from all over the movement brainstormed and discussed freely about one single question: where do we want to be, in 2030. Personally, I advocated and pushed for a more "olistic" approach: not just an encyclopedia, but a platform for accessing and creating knowledge, in whatever form. There is somewhat a general consensus on that, but as a Wikisource community I think it's *fundamental* to give our input, and push towards a Wikimedia that is *beyond Wikipedia*.
Thus, I encourage you again to write here your dream about Wikimedia in 2030: what would you like to see? where would you like to be? In the Wikisource conference, we spoke a lot about language equity, community, tech. I'm sure you're full of ideas and vision.
There are *no wrong answers*, and we still have few days to give our input before the first stage of this long process ends.
Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:03 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :)
Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit :
W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> napisał:
2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner prosfilaes@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki ankry.wiki@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 ?).
We do: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination 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.
Exactly. 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.
Ankry
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@lists.wikimedia.org