[Foundation-l] Meta-arbcom (was: the foundations of...)

[hillgentleman]

On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. In any language supported by google and altavista there is
> > a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments
> > on the auto-translation.
>
> They would end up having to re-translate everything. Auto-translations
> are appalling and there is far too much risk of misunderstanding.
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use
French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.

Risk of misunderstanding - this will happen even if you use english only.
You cannot guarentee what you see is what is meant.  However, in my proposal,
you at least have the source language in you hand and you can verify.
As I have said,
there is  a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments



>
> > 2.  A bilingual discussion not only ''enfranchaises" more wikimedian,
> > it also allow you to look at the "sources", since many of the comments
> > that would be in English in your proposal would be written in another language
> > and have to be translated anyway.
>
> In my proposal, everything is done in English (or, possibly, another
> common language - if it turns out more people speak French, say, then
> everything can be done in French, but I think English is likely to
> have the most people able to take part), there is no translation.
> That's why members would need to speak reasonable English. If things
> need to be translated it slows everything down enormously.
>
There is no translation?   Do you forget that the English or French that you
see are translations themselves?


Best,
H.