[Foundation-l] Cross-wiki articles

Yoni Weiden yonidebest at gmail.com
Sun May 10 08:08:20 UTC 2009

If the bottom line is that people resort to en-wp because they have the
information which other wikis don't have, people who cannot read English
have a disadvantage. I do not think this is the foundation's intention.

Cross-Wiki policies can be made. For example, if X (number) wikipedias have
an article about Y (subject), all other wikipedias are required to allow
creation of said article.

i.e. "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" episode is published in no less
than 15 languages. Above policy means that the creation of this article
should be allowed in he-wp, and not deleted due to insignificance in the
eyes of 57% of the he-wp community. The bottom line is that the Hebrew
language should have a wikipedia article about said episode, and if the
community does not agree, it should be forced. Why forced? because this
situation is just ridiculous. 15 community languages think this article is
worth a page, but the he-wp community knows best. I think not.

2009/5/3 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de>

> effe iets anders wrote:
> > I think that if the public does /not/ differentiate, that is actually
> > quite a compliment. That actually shows that the quality is better,
> > because it corrects for the lower quantity and the assumptions that
> > English must be better because more people. For example in the
> > Netherlands, a lot of people still say " well, yes, I use Wikipedia,
> > but of course only the English, which is much better and extensive" .
> > This while the Dutch version is absolutely not small (>500k articles)
> > and imho not with a very low quality. So if people don't
> > differentiate, that already tells something about the German version
> > :)
> >
> sorrowfully I don't know dutch and nl-wp, so I cannot say about why the
> dutch people would prefer en-wp. Maybe one of the reason is also because
> most dutch people are really multilinguals.
> There are a few reasons why some german would go for en-wp but not
> de-wp. The first reason is history. Historically en-wp had more content
> and was better. de-wp had catch up a lot in the last two years. But if
> you had mostly used en-wp earlier, you would probably remain there and
> think it is still so. This is not so, I quite sure know that. I
> translate a lot of articles to zh-wp. Three years ago most of the
> translations come from en-wp. Now I even think I use more de-wp as basis
> for the translation than the en-wp.
> I think the threshold of notability (where in de-wp is far more higher
> than in en-wp). Say, I am interested in Simpsons, I would definitively
> go to en-wp which have far more content about topic as in de-wp. Not all
> peole search internet for information because they want to do research
> work. Most of people do it because they are simply interested in
> something, a place, a person or a movie, a game. In these cases a
> language version like the en-wp with a lower notability threshold is
> more useful.
> --
> Ting
> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list