[Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

[Andrea Zanni]

> I've stated before why I disagree with this characterization, and I
> reject this framing. Functionality like the Visual Editor, the mobile
> site improvements, Lua, and other core engineering initiatives aren't
> limited in their impact to Wikipedia. The recent efforts on mobile
> uploading are actually focused on Commons. Deploying new software
> every two weeks and continually making key usability improvements is
> not what neglect looks like.
>

Thank you Erik for your response.
I don't agree with all of your points, but it's refreshing to see that
there's been what seem to be a lot of thought in this.
Often (we the 15 active users of sister projects) just feel nobody cares of
SP, and attention and thought and answers sometimes are just enough.

Anyway, I would just add that one of the major problem, I think,
is that when we think at the "human knowledge" in ("*I**magine a world in
which every single person on the planet* is given free access to the sum of
all human knowledge"),
we probably just think at "human knowledge in the form of neutral
encyclopedic articles", which, in fact, it's not true.

I feel that we could boost a lot the idea of a "family of projects", of an
integrated, global, comprehensive approach to knowledge.
Right now, the fact is that Wikipedia both attracts and cannibalizes users
to/from sister projects, which are kinda invisible if you don't know they
exist.

Could we promote better our sister projects, making them more visible?
For this purpose, user Micru and me just created a RfC for interproject
links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Interproject_links_interface
(I
invite you all to propose other solutions), but
the underlying question is if we, as the Wikimedia community, are aware of
the "theoretical" shift this means.

Aubrey