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

The Cunctator wrote:

>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Intlwiki-l mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/intlwiki-l
>
>
>  
>
I have to aggre with Anthere and Ray. I think that the wiki would get 
dull if everything were uniform as you suggest.  Articles *need* to be 
different with different languages because of the different connotations 
of words in each language. I am sure that we can agree that translated 
versions of a book aren't as good as the original language versions.