On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 20:31, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a
>> very long time."
>>
>> We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator
>> of sources.
>> That is
For what it is worth
I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign
sources with no independent translation available:
a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source
(because other editors are generally not able to understand it)
b) Th
Dear friends,
A quick update on the oral citations project.
1) We have now posted sample articles in all 3 project languages,
Malayalam, Sepedi and Hindi:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29
2) A full English subtitle track for the
Nope, never said that.
I disagree with the idea that this is "usually done" however I have no
objections to it's being done.
Never did.
My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mai
On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a
> very long time."
>
> We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator
> of sources.
> That is the point of RS.
> We don't publish first.
Translating a qu
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Why can't you do both?
> Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed
> by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be
> dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is
Why can't you do both?
Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by
a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt
with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for
those who want the original to do t
Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a very
long time."
We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of
sources.
That is the point of RS.
We don't publish first.
-Original Message-
From: M. Williamson
To: Wikimedia
And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say
I am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original
research. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long
time, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes
in
No that's not what it would mean.
It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language
page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN
translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting
publications.
-Or
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
> texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is
> that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon
> be, a verifiable En
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> This is spot on.
>
> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
Some have some haven't.
However the field of epistemology tends to have so little relation to
what people actually do that it's not particularly critical.
--
The logical flaw here comes between "use" and "translate".
Although Wikipedians may and probably sometimes do, translate Wikipedia pages,
from English to French etc, translating a source citation is something quite
different.
I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spa
Welcome Shiju and Nitika. We are thrilled to have the both of you around!!!
:)
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Hisham Mundol wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm really pleased to send out this email welcoming the first 2 new members
> of the India Programs team. Just before I introduce them, I thought
On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton wrote:
> While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
> this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
> of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).
They do tend to be noisiest, and they do
Thanks Ray! I actually met with developers from RRN and a few First Nations
advocacy groups (regarding cultural preservation) - RRN is really amazing, and
I look forward to exploring how opportunities can open from it. We will talk
more in Haifa!
(I lived in Van for a year, give my best to Comm
> Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion
>
>
While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
this is not the cas
On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard wrote:
> Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable
> sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
> *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
> hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd
heard of the stuff.
Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:
This is spot on.
At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to
truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.
Ray
On 07/29/11 2:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> The great thing about an
From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many
of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element
in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa.
Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver
District the
The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is
a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with
English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we
know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.
(I realise this is foundation-l, b
On 07/27/11 4:40 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be cited-quoted, in their
> original language.
> A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia
> solely. It must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source.
>
> In
Hi Folks,
I'm really pleased to send out this email welcoming the first 2 new members of
the India Programs team. Just before I introduce them, I thought I'd share
with you the background of their selection.
Context
As you might be aware, the Foundation had decided to undertake a catalyst
op
LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR
policy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their
original language unless the translation itself is verifiable.
Ray
On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to
25 matches
Mail list logo
