« Return to Thread: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
Re: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
by Ray Saintonge
::
Rate this Message:
\Mike wrote:
> I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning
> Romance languages' participles underway in
> en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such
> discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or
> the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
>
I'm sure it will. But with an entirely new cast of characters, and
perhaps they will find different byt equally valid solutions
> I see the same discussions concerning various
> details on certain Swedish words being held on
> both sv: and en: - and in how many more places
> are these words discussed without me noticing
> because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and
> perhaps unable to understand the language in
> which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else)
> familiar with other wiktionaries could point out
> how the same problem may have been solved already
> in this second wiktionary, would I only know
> about the discussion...
>The discussion between those who are already fluent in Swedish will be
far different from corresponding discussions on other projects. The
things about the language and its culture which one takes for granted
when raised in that language are not at all obvious to those who learned
about the language later in life.
> Someone found out a while ago that several
> wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment
> of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same
> issue over and over and over again, once in each
> wiktionary where this user found this particular
> error.
>
That sort of thing is inevitable. Would you have understood what they
were talking about in Gaelic language comments? It does not get any
easier when the language is non-ino-European.
> Of course I understand that there are some
> serious complications with any attempt of a
> "multilingual discussion" - maybe most
> importantly the continuous need to translate
> things, but I guess there also will be issues
> with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange
> things in very different manners.
>
Being able to arrange things differently will be important to the
longevity of the wiktionaries. If different approaches are allowed to
flourish, they will be a constant source of fresh ideas for the others.
> Now the question is: would anyone be interested
> in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of
> their favourite language if it took place in meta
> or on another site than they ordinarily work on?
> Or would such an attempt be considered as an
> attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how
> "my" wiktonary is run?
>
I don't think it would even get as far as complaints about outsider
actions. People would just not bother to read comments in other
languages. Given the long-windedness of many Wikimedians providing
translation for those who might be interested would not be practical.
Already there are frequent and continuing requests for translating
documents that are important to Wikimedia in general.
> (p.s. This actually makes me regret that we
> basically decided to split the wiktionaries
> according to the user interface language and not
> according to "content language", way back in
> 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English
> wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point
> crying over spilled milk.)
The underlying rationale was that each Wiktionary was intended to
address the needs of speakers of that language. One could argue that
user interface language and content language are the same thing. The
content for this purpose is not so much the words that are defined, but
the way they are defined and otherwise written up. Part of the vision
is to have tools for identifying material when you don't even know what
language it's in.
Ec
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
> I mean, I see right now a discussion concerning
> Romance languages' participles underway in
> en:wikt. I see no reason, however, why a such
> discussion won't arise again, in the Greek, or
> the Polish, or even the Italian wiktionary.
>
I'm sure it will. But with an entirely new cast of characters, and
perhaps they will find different byt equally valid solutions
> I see the same discussions concerning various
> details on certain Swedish words being held on
> both sv: and en: - and in how many more places
> are these words discussed without me noticing
> because I'm not active in those wiktionaries, and
> perhaps unable to understand the language in
> which it is held? Perhaps I (or someone else)
> familiar with other wiktionaries could point out
> how the same problem may have been solved already
> in this second wiktionary, would I only know
> about the discussion...
>
far different from corresponding discussions on other projects. The
things about the language and its culture which one takes for granted
when raised in that language are not at all obvious to those who learned
about the language later in life.
> Someone found out a while ago that several
> wiktionaries had made mistakes in their treatment
> of Irish nation names - and had to rise the same
> issue over and over and over again, once in each
> wiktionary where this user found this particular
> error.
>
That sort of thing is inevitable. Would you have understood what they
were talking about in Gaelic language comments? It does not get any
easier when the language is non-ino-European.
> Of course I understand that there are some
> serious complications with any attempt of a
> "multilingual discussion" - maybe most
> importantly the continuous need to translate
> things, but I guess there also will be issues
> with various wiktionaries wanting to arrange
> things in very different manners.
>
Being able to arrange things differently will be important to the
longevity of the wiktionaries. If different approaches are allowed to
flourish, they will be a constant source of fresh ideas for the others.
> Now the question is: would anyone be interested
> in trying to follow a multilingual discussion of
> their favourite language if it took place in meta
> or on another site than they ordinarily work on?
> Or would such an attempt be considered as an
> attempt of *someone* (=outsiders) to decide how
> "my" wiktonary is run?
>
I don't think it would even get as far as complaints about outsider
actions. People would just not bother to read comments in other
languages. Given the long-windedness of many Wikimedians providing
translation for those who might be interested would not be practical.
Already there are frequent and continuing requests for translating
documents that are important to Wikimedia in general.
> (p.s. This actually makes me regret that we
> basically decided to split the wiktionaries
> according to the user interface language and not
> according to "content language", way back in
> 2003/2004 or whenever the first two non-English
> wiktionaries were created.... :/ Well, no point
> crying over spilled milk.)
The underlying rationale was that each Wiktionary was intended to
address the needs of speakers of that language. One could argue that
user interface language and content language are the same thing. The
content for this purpose is not so much the words that are defined, but
the way they are defined and otherwise written up. Part of the vision
is to have tools for identifying material when you don't even know what
language it's in.
Ec
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
« Return to Thread: Why no formalized collaboration between Wiktionaries?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
