[Foundation-l] Preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages

Tue Feb 12 19:36:48 UTC 2008

"completed on Betawiki" does not measure all existing localization.

You said earlier: "It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively
African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki
localised."

That's patently false - maybe it's only in 2008 that they have
localisation on Betawiki, but Betawiki is not the world. I do think
Betawiki is awesome, but I also think you tend to be focussed a little
_too_ much on your pet projects - it used to be OmegaWiki, and now
it's Betawiki. They're both great projects, but the world does not
revolve around them.

Mark

On 12/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages.
> Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that
> have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like
> Wolof are also being worked on.
>
> When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total
> waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu
> Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are
> 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective. When
> language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done for
> all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect start
> for any needed project localisation.
>
> It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant
> messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has been
> done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This means
> that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to get a
> uniform terminology used.
>
> We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more
> languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from  where we can honestly
> say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
>
> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
>
> Please help !!
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know
> > you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but
> > please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several
> > African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
> >
> > On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
> > languages
> > > per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
> > that
> > > invest in their language and culture.
> > >
> > > In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only
> > in
> > > 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most
> > > relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
> > African
> > > languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
> > practical
> > > value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking
> > about
> > > Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
> > >
> > > The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
> > projects
> > > can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has
> > > sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the
> > WMF
> > > supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
> > language
> > > committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
> > >
> > > So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
> > happen.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     GerardM
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
> > pathoschild at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the
> > > > topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude
> > > > minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the
> > > > preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission.
> > > > If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work
> > > > *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or
> > > > prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
> > > >
> > > > Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and
> > > > resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own
> > > > causes and motives)?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Yours cordially,
> > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://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
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.