[Foundation-l] elections

[James Hare]

For those who don't get the reference, "tl;dr" means "too long; didn't read"
-- the phrase particularly refers to several-paragraph long rants that,
frankly, no one really reads.

On 4/7/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> considere translacioun.
>
> 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".
>
> Mark
>
> 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 [1]. 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.
> > >
> > > [1] 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
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>