[Foundation-l] Localisation of MediaWiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The reason why we insist on full localisation for subsequent projects is
that it is the only way in which we can force the localisation to be good
enough at one time. When we give the final approval and the requirement is
only met at that time and there is no continuous localisation it is just
good enough and because of the continuous development it will not take that
long and it will be not that great anymore. I agree with you that there
should be a continuous community effort and when this is the case, the
requirement for full localisation at the time of the assessment of final
approval is not a problem at all.

So in answer to your question, the reason why we insist on it is because the
localisation for many languages needs serious improvement. We do this
because it forces the issue on the agenda of the respective language
communities. We do this because the need for proper localisation is there.
We do this because we feel it is appropriate because it is a major
contributing factor in attracting a reading and editing public for MediaWiki
and for MediaWiki projects.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 16, 2008 2:39 PM, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2008 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Localisation is best done centrally. Localisation of a project locally
> > should only be done on those messages that are distinctly different from
> > what is valid for other projects. These are messages that have to do
> with
> > local policies.
> >
> > When you are of the opinion that the requirements for first projects and
> > subsequent projects should be the same, you are arguing for a
> substantial
> > increase to the entry level for a project because from my point of view
> we
> > would demand full localisation of both MediaWiki messages and extensions
> > of
> > the WMF. This is in my opinion not reasonable. I agree with you that
> > localisation should be a continuous process. It is for this reason that
> > only
> > for subsequent projects full localisation is required.
>
>
>
> When I asked that first and subsequent projects be treated the same (with
> respect to localisation), I meant that projects would be allowed to begin
> with *the same* localisation requirements as has been done in the past
> (particularly, as Aphaia points out, projects without full localisation
> seem
> to work). Or perhaps this should be 'more or less the same' requirements -
> there might be some new messages that would be good for new projects to
> have. I say this because it does not seem reasonable to ask new projects
> to
> fully localise all MediaWiki messages on top of their other work in
> getting
> a project started. Proposing a new project can be a confusing enough
> process, requiring people to navigate multiple wikis and jump through
> various hoops - this only adds to that confusion and stress. What I
> propose,
> therefore, is that localisation become a continuous project undertaken by
> pan-project language communities or 'taskforces'. This seems to be what
> you
> are saying when you say localisation should be done centrally (ie on
> BetaWiki) - so why place the extra burden on new projects?
>
> Cormac
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>