node.ue at gmail.com
Sat Apr 7 22:37:05 UTC 2007
Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
On 07/04/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On 4/6/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> The voting period was long, but there was very little time between the
> >> finalization of candidates and the beginning of voting. One consequence
> >> of this was that translators had not completed translation of candidate
> >> statements at the time the voting began.
> >> There should be more time ahead to prepare.
> > Indeed. Though translators really do their best, it is very difficult to
> > achieve translation of all candidate's statements. Last time the statements
> > were *suggested* not to exceed 1,000 characters . Some rules must be
> > changed.
> > I suggest the following extra rules :
> > * For the pre-(s)election candidates, only a *short presentation* (~50
> > words) ; easy and fast to translate, even for many candidates. These
> > statements may be translated only in « big » languages, i.e. those of the
> > most developed projects.
> > * For the final candidates, *no more than 150 words*. These statements
> > should be translated in as many languages as possible.
> > * All statements *must* be written in simple words, simple sentences without
> > any idioms.
> > * All candidates *must* write their statement in all languages they speak.
> > They know what they want to say better than anyone, so it's better to have a
> > rough translation by themselves that will be refined later than a
> > well-written serious mistranslation.
> > To the future candidates: respect the work of translators. Last time, some
> > candidates largely exceeded the characters limit. Their statements were
> > however translated because the translators felt a moral obligation to
> > translate them. Though, such an attitude from candidates shows a disrespect
> > to our volunteer translators. So, if you long to be a community
> > representative, first respect the community by following these simple rules.
> > Thanks.
> >  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006/En
> I disagree with these suggestions here as the only solution. I
> understand that for translators, it is ideal if you have as little to
> translate as possible. Lengthy statements obviously would be a problem
> to translate for what are arguably volunteer translators, so certainly
> an effort to keep such position statements concise ought to be encouraged.
> At the same time, there are significant issues with real meat that will
> be brought up this time around, and I expect that candidates will all
> want to express opinions on many of these topics. By limiting the
> position statement to only 150 words or even 50 words, they might not be
> able to respond to challenges, or even address what may end up becoming
> major issues in this campaign.
> As has been addressed already on this mailing list, issues about fair
> use, trademark policy, fundraising, and perceived America-centrism may
> all become issues. Other issues including chapter relations, project
> expansions (or limits) and the scope of the various WMF projects may
> also come up. And I have just scratched the surface over issues that
> could be discussed that would be very legitimate points to be debated.
> I'm not sure how much of this can or ought to be done through the
> translators, or if perhaps a babel-fish type automated translation might
> to be substituted for some of this debate. I know that isn't perfect,
> but I am trying to suggest some sort of general accommodation be made
> here. Certainly a NPOV "voter's guide" could have some of the key
> points you are suggesting here, with links to other pages that would go
> into further depth on candidate positions. And priorities should be
> made over what parts ought to be translated first. In this regard you
> could suggest having a short, medium, and long policy statement that
> would have decreasing levels of translation, with the highest priority
> to simply list all of the candidates and explain the voting rules in a
> given language.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
More information about the foundation-l