Differences in the language versions, was RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch onthe FrenchWikipedia !

[The Cunctator]

> From: Ray Saintonge on Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:45 PM
> Anthere wrote:
> > Ruimu a rit:
> >> "Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
> >>> Each wikipia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
> >>> not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules.
> >>> Respecting
> >>> some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
> >>
> >> Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I
guess.
> >> In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the
> >> same entry
> >> in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try
> >> to reach
> >> universalism.)
> >> Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be
> >> the same
> >> as French one or Rwandese one.
> >
> > I do not think in theory each wp entry should be a translation of
the
> > other languages. It is too ideal :-)
> > I think each should have its specificity, its special taste. Then we
> > can inspire from the other versions to set each local version.
> > you are true that chinese npov should be the same than french or
> > rwandese one of course. But that might be expressed differently.
> 
> I agree with Anthère.  There are very few rules that should apply in
the
> same way to all languages.  The idea of NPOV should apply to all
> languages, but the way it's implemented is going to change.  Something
> might be a problem  for one language, but not for another.

I have to say that on principle and as a matter of policy I strongly
disagree with Ray and Anthere. The overall goal *does* need to be that
each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the same entry in any
language. 

Each language version should *not* have its own special taste.

As a matter of course the fact that languages are intertwined with
ethnicity, nationality, and modes of expression means that the same
content will be discussed differently in different languages.

As a matter of course the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project
means that contributions are shaped by the contributors' individual
priorities. As French-speakers have statistically different priorities
than English-speakers or Chinese-speakers, as a matter of course the
language versions will have differently weighted contributions.

But we should not have *as a goal* different priorities, different
discussions of the same content. The goal, as Ruimi said, is to try to
reach universalism.

It's a lot easier for Wikipedia contributors if we celebrate ethnic
differences--and no matter how you slice it, celebrating the forking of
the Wikipedia concept for each language is doing just that (and I'd be
happy to hear convincing arguments otherwise)--but it's not better for
Wikipedia.

That said, we're still growing and I think there are many significant
errors in judgment in terms of establishing policy for the
English-language version of Wikipedia, and I'm not advocating using
universalism as a club to make every language follow en.wiki's example.

I *am* advocating two things:
1. Making it clear that the ultimate goal is universalism and
consistency across all languages.
2. Improving the software to allow for better integration of the
different languages (e.g. one user account, the option to have multiple
languages in recent changes and watchlists, etc.)
3. Stop using mailing lists and use bulletin-board type systems
integrated with Wikipedia.

This is all we'd have to do, I suspect, to make sure that we do work
towards the ultimate goal of universalism and consistency.

--tc