[Foundation-l] New projects opened

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are many ways you can approach paid contributions. Saying that it does
not work is certainly for localisation manifestly incorrect. The success of
the translatewiki.net rally is a case in point. It does work.

Now there is a question about WHO is paying for localisations. The team of
translatewiki.net does not have the money to pay for targeted languages. We
do not have much of an incentive to do that either because it is not in our
interest. Providing better infrastructure for localisations in software and
in infrastructure is critical. LocalisationUpdate IS fundamental in bringing
localisations in a more timely manner. This has been accepted by the WMF...
for me it is a matter of putting you money where your mouth is... my mouth.

When someone ANYONE wants to pay for the localisation for a language, at
translatewiki.net we do not care about it being paid for, we care about the
quantity and the quality of localisations and we prefer it when the
localisation is paid for to do the initial localisation and the maintenance
for at least a year.. This is necessary to get the discussion going for that
language..

When the WMF says in so many words that they want to support the African
languages, it has to be be credible.. Only saying that you want to make it
happen is just talk. Having work shops in Africa in Africa is extremely
expensive when we have people fly in. For the cost of someone travelling to
South Africa , I am sure we can find people to localise African languages. I
believe that the quality of localisation is one key performance indicators
for the projects in a language.. The Dutch Wikipedia does exceedingly well
and one reason for it is that the localisation is ALWAYS complete and of the
best quality.

When a NGO is willing to pay for localisation, it makes absolute sense. It
will be dificult for the WMF or for translatewiki.net to pay for
localisation. My foundation, could if it would. It would if it had the money
and it would if it was to demonstrate the relation between quality
localisation and the state of health of a project.
Thanks.,
      GerardM



2009/8/23 Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Erik Zachte<erikzachte at infodisiac.com>
> wrote:
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >
> >> I am of course thinking about the list of 1000 articles
> >> each wikipedia should have. Just completing a
> >> significant part of that list is an accomplishment for
> >> a tiny pool of editors, but is within reach, and
> >> can serve as a useful incentive.
> >
> > Here is the url
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have
>
> This was used as a wiki-building exercise in swahili in 2006, and it
> was rather successful.
> http://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Makala_za_msingi_za_kamusi_elezo
>
>
> > I hope one the outcomes of
> > the strategic
> > process will be that Wikimedia starts to invest more actively in outreach
> to
> > parts of the world that are in need.
>
> Agreed.  Though our greatest asset when it comes to outreach such as
> this may be the local and diaspora community members who are active
> editors/readers/supporters.
>
>
> > The current 'laissez faire' / 'trickle down' policy where we wait till
> > people start helping themselves
> > has not been very productive for some parts of the world.
>
> Agreed.  Even in English, this hasn't led to productive relationships
> with contributors in some subject areas.
>
>
> > Maybe pay for translation of a basic set of articles to any language with
> > more
> > than 1 million speakers, which is deemed in need of support, per yet to
> be
> > defined criteria?
>
> I'm not sure that paying for translation is needed, or the best
> available incentive.  Embassy-sponsored contests and writing sprints
> seem like a fine idea to me.  Fame in an educational or national
> context seems to me likely to attract potential long-term
> contributors.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests
>
>  Certainly we should expand the community to actively include people
> who already write in that language who wish to help, whether or not
> they currently are able to edit.
>
> > This could serve as incentive, show that we really care, serve as
> > example of what could follow,
> > it would make our content also appear in Google in that language,
> > which for many of us already involved has been a starting point.
> <
> > Of course there are practicalities to consider. Who guards the 100
> essential
> > articles in a language until a community self-organizes?
> > We might need a variation of the current policies for new projects, where
> > now an active community is a prerequisite.
> > Instead we might publish those 100 article as a protected showcase with
> > different procedures to open up the wiki for general editing.
>
> Why protected?  The small wiki monitors are quite able to keep a new
> wiki from being overrun.  I do see your point that having articles
> attracts contributors, as well as the other way around.  There is a
> correlation between # of pageviews and the amount of material on a
> project.
> That is one sense in which bot-addition of new material is valuable in
> building a language community.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>